This irritates me....alot!

[dogstar]

The country was founded by " goverment fearing people "...The pilgrams came here because they didnt like the goverment over THERE imposeing the goverments chosen religion on them. The writers of the Constitution understood this and thats why there is the First Amendment. I have know problems with ppl. talking and complaining about religion like we are here and thats in the artical one as well, free speech. But the artical also says Goverment shall stay out of it.
Look at the preamble that Tizz posted from Virgina's preamble. Imagine if the founders wrote that as Article One instead. Then we all would have to act like were Christians or go to jail. Fine for churches to put three crosses in their lot or individuals to put them in their yard or on a bumper sticker, a cresent moon or star of david or even a pentagram, but not the goverment. Freedom of religion means free from goverment imposed religion.

 

[native]

Originally Posted by jcrim
This is where you're mistaken. Our forefathers created the constitution in the manner it is so that religion would not be legislated at all. They may have been Christians personally but had the foresight to realize that their new, progressive country would have a secular government. Part of the ideal was to change from the ways of historical England where the church was a political power as opposed to a place of worship.
If the europeans came to "The New Land" to change from the ways of historical england where the church was political power then why were Native Americans murdered, removed from their land, sent to boarding schools to learn the "civilized ways" english and not to pratice their own culture and language? Why was one way greater than to other? Why was their an act of assimilation and removel of native americans? All this was done in what the settlers, missionaries, and government called "In God's Name" We speak of a Jewis holocaust but what Native Americans went through was just as great just not as important, I guess. not imortant enough for the ameican government to speak about. If they want to remove the crossess then tell them to tell all schools, colleges and so on to remove their Native American mascots! This country if full of it! Native have been fighting terrorism since Columbus so called "Discovered" this land. Why doesn't anyone recognize that?
Some spelling may be wrong but so what!

 

[farmboy]

Who named these towns and cities? The federal government?

If the name was decided by the citizenry, or at least voted on, the government isn't the one endorsing religion. It is the people. If 51% of the folks in a town want "Los Angelos" Or "Las Cruces" to be the name, then that is that. And the Government should stay out of that.
The Feds don't say "THis town shall be Jesus-ville." (Although that would be OK with me. I would probably move from Allah-town.)

 

[schneidts]

Originally Posted by Farmboy
The Feds don't say "THis town shall be Jesus-ville." (Although that would be OK with me. I would probably move from Allah-town.)

You crack me up...Jesus-ville.
All in all I think there are much, much, much more critical things to worry, toil, and waste time/money on. I mean, a couple of crosses on a state seal...good greif. A very small minority of the population are trying to force acceptance and change the constitution, which is a dangerous thing. There is a big difference between acceptance and tolerance. These same groups would try to have you beleive that they are victims of religous persecution, simply because of a sentence on a plaque on a courtroom wall, or a cross on a city hall wall. Everyone has the freedom to openly practice whatever religion they want in this country, isn't that good enough? 85% of Americans are Christians, so odds are that a cross here and there is going to happen. By the way, I am not a religous person at all, I just think we are becoming way too politically correct...

 

[jcrim]

Originally Posted by Native
If the europeans came to "The New Land" to change from the ways of historical england where the church was political power then why were Native Americans murdered, removed from their land, sent to boarding schools to learn the "civilized ways" english and not to pratice their own culture and language? Why was one way greater than to other? Why was their an act of assimilation and removel of native americans? All this was done in what the settlers, missionaries, and government called "In God's Name" We speak of a Jewis holocaust but what Native Americans went through was just as great just not as important, I guess. not imortant enough for the ameican government to speak about. If they want to remove the crossess then tell them to tell all schools, colleges and so on to remove their Native American mascots! This country if full of it! Native have been fighting terrorism since Columbus so called "Discovered" this land. Why doesn't anyone recognize that?
Some spelling may be wrong but so what!
You're right... I was speaking of ideals. Unfortunately the reality of this country's practice's are far less virtuous. I wouldn't compare the holocaust the the treatment of native americans because one was genocide, the other was persecution. Which is worse... I don't know. The holocaust is probably brought up more often because it was much more recent.
Originally Posted by Farmboy
The Feds don't say "THis town shall be Jesus-ville." (Although that would be OK with me. I would probably move from Allah-town.)
Although you're trying to be funny, you're making my point. Don't look at these issues only as to how it affects you... if you would not live in "Allah-town" then a muslim person should not have to live in "Jesus-ville". Open your mind to empathize with the other perspective. Remember, all men are created equal... not all members of the majority group are created equal.

 

[avbryce1]

lets see them remove these crosses

 

[schneidts]

I'm sure someday some group will say it offends them, and they'll all be replaced with round headstones...

 

[mudplayerx]

I always thought America was rule of the majority. What has happened to our great country to allow the minority to censor and edit what we the people (majority) find appropriate and nonoffensive?
Even most non-christians and aethiests that I know and have personally talked to regarding the matter state that they understand that the country was founded on christian morals. What IS so offensive about christianity anyways? Is it the "love your brother" part? Maybe it is the "thou shall not kill" or "thou shall not covet thy neighbors good" part.
I dunno.
Next the censors are going to make us rename towns and states with native american names because they may have spiritual connotations.

 

[farmboy]

Jesus-ville is a very religious name for a town. Los Angeles is as well. THe point is that our government today didn't name them (it would be neat to live in J-town) so why should they un-name them? They are HISTORY. If I lived and worked in Allah-town (is that PA?) I don't have to be Muslim. The Government can't make me be Muslim. I could respect the call to prayer(as long as Church bells weren't silenced). Tolerance should be extended to Christians as well. Taking away the majorities rights is not fair.

 

[michelle l]

I am an athiest to the core. However, I respect the choices people make, crosses, and other symbols of Christianity. I don't understand who it is, exactly, that are attempting to wipe out displays of the Christian faith...if I am an athiest and I don't mind, then who does?

Is it the people who are immigrating here who are not Christian?
This will probably come out wrong, but I think what bothers me the most is the fact that people are immigrating to this country and then trying to tell the people here what they are offended and intimidated by displays of Christianity. We have traditions and history here too, and also a culture which is based on Christianity. I'm not saying that they don't have a right to believe whatever they want, I just don't agree with them trying to change the culture here.

 

[demi7996]

Can't we all just be friends?
I mean, I hate religion, so much. But, I have been a follower of Christ for 5 years now. I think when people throw out religion, and focus on having an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ, this world would be a totally different place.
Just some food for thought, not trying to stir anyone up. Please don't send me hate mail! I hope you all have a blessed day!

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
Freedom of religion means free from goverment imposed religion.
I agree. I just want to know how the three crosses are imposing a religion. Which religion?
Take a look at this.
" The Cross is one of the oldest religious symbols of all time, from the prehistoric solar cross (an equal armed cross), to the Cross adapted from Pagan cults for Christian use after the council of Nicaea. Cross symbols are among the oldest on earth, and are found in every culture. Crosses are almost invariably symbols of the sun, the sky, and the passage of time, and are linked with most solar deities."
Scientology uses a cross as well. So tell me which single religion is the seal or government imposing?
""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."
Show me a single LAW made that respects an establishment of religion. Just one. You won't.
People make a big deal out of nothing.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
Thats all in the Article One, There right to take their grievance to a court and allow the court to decide if three crosses on the great seal of the city of Las Cruces is goverment respecting an established religion or not. America at its best.
As I said.....^
I agree the desingers of the seal may have done the three crosses to represent the history of the city. As you said in the first post. And may or may not have considered the religish impact that other faiths may or not see in them. Although you are correct about the symbelism of a cross thru history, in general most ppl. are going to see three crosses as a symbol of Christ or christanity. You mentioned yourself that it was a Catholic missionary.
My point was that its their right to argue their regress in court. Any Mayor or commisioner approveing a seal ect. is basicaly a law. They had to officaly approve it first I would think.
I understand you point about it being historic and all and the court will deside. Dont hate ( for lack of better term) the two men you mentioned for exersizing their rights under the Constitution. Unless you dont agree w/ that part of the admendments., Im not a lawyer but the Judge in Al. with his ten Comandments thing was ruled repecting one over another and in Texas it was ruled OK because there was more religons represented in a historical context. I dont know if there has to be some kind of law or just to say that its wrong and Gov. should not do things that don't represent all religions equally. I think the spirit of the law is clear and thats what most ppl. feel regardless of their religion.

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
As I said.....^
I agree the desingers of the seal may have done the three crosses to represent the history of the city. As you said in the first post. And may or may not have considered the religish impact that other faiths may or not see in them. Although you are correct about the symbelism of a cross thru history, in general most ppl. are going to see three crosses as a symbol of Christ or christanity. You mentioned yourself that it was a Catholic missionary.
My point was that its their right to argue their regress in court. Any Mayor or commisioner approveing a seal ect. is basicaly a law. They had to officaly approve it first I would think.
I understand you point about it being historic and all and the court will deside. Dont hate ( for lack of better term) the two men you mentioned for exersizing their rights under the Constitution. Unless you dont agree w/ that part of the admendments., Im not a lawyer but the Judge in Al. with his ten Comandments thing was ruled repecting one over another and in Texas it was ruled OK because there was more religons represented in a historical context. I dont know if there has to be some kind of law or just to say that its wrong and Gov. should not do things that don't represent all religions equally. I think the spirit of the law is clear and thats what most ppl. feel regardless of their religion.
I agree they have the right. I won't fault them for that. I fault the courts for entertaining this. As I stated previously...What single religion does the cross represent? Unless you directly talk with the creator of the seal (which is impossible now) no one knows. Therefore without this knowledge there is no way to prove the crosses (signed to the seal under law) represent a single religion. Therefore the government has done no wrong. A person could look at those crosses and see Scientology. Another person could see a sun god symbol, while yet another could see christ. So has The government sanctioned and forced a religion on the people by using this symbol? No, they have not. Has the government prevented these two in question from practicing and believeing how they wish? No.
To me it is like looking at a person from the middle east and automatically assuming they are either a terrorist or a muslim. When in fact they could be something all together different. It is, in a strange way, a form of stereotyping or profiling, which is not tolerated in this country in most instances....except this one.
I personally feel these two people just wanted to make a name for themselves somehow. I mean, even the ACLU has backed the defense of this seal....and they sometimes go to extremes when it comes to religion and government.

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by Darth Tang
I personally feel these two people just wanted to make a name for themselves somehow. I mean, even the ACLU has backed the defense of this seal....and they sometimes go to extremes when it comes to religion and government.

Actually, the ACLU is very frequently behind these kinds of things. There are radio shows on Christian radio that spend 90% of their time talking about law suits just like this one (and usually worse) that the ACLU is involved in. They go out of their way to remove any trace of religion that they can from our society.
Also, ever notice how the 1st amendment doesn't say anything about "separation of church and state" or even include the words (separation, church, state)? Can anybody tell me where the phrase comes from (without a google search)? IMO it's taken quite out of context.
Here's the 1st for your viewing pleasure... "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."
It sounds like most of you whether religious or not do not agree with the majority of anti-religious action taken by our courts in recent years. But for those who do, how do you explain how this amendment could be stating that the seal of this city, talking about God or religion in school (Congress never passed a law saying it had to be discussed), or the display of the Ten Commandments in front of a building are all unconstitutional? The basis for this is that words are taken out of context. I hear "no establishment of religion" used to defend the case, which is almost true, but Congress never made laws about these things people fight over these days.

 

[danedodger]

A very small minority of the population are trying to force acceptance and change the constitution, which is a dangerous thing. There is a big difference between acceptance and tolerance. These same groups would try to have you beleive that they are victims of religous persecution, simply because of a sentence on a plaque on a courtroom wall, or a cross on a city hall wall. Everyone has the freedom to openly practice whatever religion they want in this country, isn't that good enough?
I won't even get into whether the seal with three crosses should stand or not because I can see both sides of the issue.
What I will get into is that we have no way of knowing the true percentages of who follows which religion because many minority groups are too scared to come forward and be counted! Personally I would say that Christianity is probably still the majority but I definitely also think that non-Christians are much more of a percentage than people know or are willing to know!! I would go so far as to venture a guess that taken as a WHOLE non-Christians may even outweigh the number of Christians in this country! Break the percentage down into individual religions and I believe Christianity would be the highest though.
Many of these groups truly ARE victims of religious persecution!! Not because of a sentence on a plaque or anything like that but for me the fact that Christian symbols (and though Darth has a point about the cross meaning different things in different religions I think everyone would agree that the cross is generally accepted as a Christian symbol these days!) are able to be so openly displayed while if you replaced it with a pentagram, for instance, someone would get lynched! It's more of a symptom of a societal disease than offensive in themselves for me.
I lost EVERYTHING because of religious intolerance! If my Constitutional rights had been protected in court the judge would've struck down the other lawyer's question about what religion I am altogether as it IS a recognized Constitutionally protected religion which poses no possible threat of harm to my children. Turn the tables around and see how you feel about it. If you lost your CHILDREN because you were Christian how would you feel? What the judge's decision told ME was that it is better to be a lying, controlling, abusive, drug user than a Wiccan. How can ANYONE of ANY religion defend that???

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by hagfish
Also, ever notice how the 1st amendment doesn't say anything about "separation of church and state" or even include the words (separation, church, state)? Can anybody tell me where the phrase comes from (without a google search)? IMO it's taken quite out of context.
It is taken from a response Thomas Jefferson made towards congress. If memory serves correct, right after his election there was a Baptist Holiday or holy day. Congress wanted Jefferson to sanction a Government holiday across the country for this baptist holy day since it came after a hard campaign and Congress needed rest. Or something like that. In Jefferson's response he basically said to do this would go against the grain of the separation of church and state he supported...or something like that. It wasn't a law made however, it was a phrase in a speech.
Danedodger, I am saddened to hear your loss for religious intolerance. The Judge should have been thrown out of office.

 

[triggerluv]

what the heck kind of post is this get on with your lame lives and live instead of argueing over silly things and act your age for crying out loud theres little kids lookin at this kind of stuff what iam saying talk in person or on the phone about this stuff not on a damn saltwater site

 

[hagfish]

Originally Posted by triggerluv
what the heck kind of post is this get on with your lame lives and live instead of argueing over silly things and act your age for crying out loud theres little kids lookin at this kind of stuff what iam saying talk in person or on the phone about this stuff not on a damn saltwater site
You are new (based on 20 something posts), so I will explain that "The Aquarium" message board is for posting about general topics that aren't necessarily related to saltwater.
As for little kids looking at this stuff, what exactly was posted here that is inappropriate for a kid of any age?
As for arguing, it is really just a discussion. I hadn't viewed it as an argument at all.
As for acting our ages, I think everyone has been. We're just discussing something that has had an effect on much of our country whether you realise it or not. There are lawsuits every day relating to these kinds of things. So I think it's hardly a waste of time to discuss them as long as it's done in a respectable manner. And I think it has to the point right before your thread.

 

[jcrim]

Originally Posted by triggerluv
what the heck kind of post is this get on with your lame lives and live instead of argueing over silly things and act your age for crying out loud theres little kids lookin at this kind of stuff what iam saying talk in person or on the phone about this stuff not on a damn saltwater site
I agree with hagfish. The posts in this discussion have generally been intelligent and respectful. Any kids seeing this would get an excellent lesson on the art of debate.
BTW, you think that people discussing religion and government have "lame lives" yet you've posted several times about keeping a clown trigger in a 12/24 gallon tank... hmm