My, my. With sites like this it's rare that you see people chatting about religion or politics, but here you have informed, misinformed, and highly opinionated people smashing the two together. lol. It has made for an interesting read though. All of this talk is just pointless chatter unless people are willing to do something -ANYTHING- about it. You will state your point, it will be responded against, all will sound mind-numbingly retarded trying to sound sophisticated. All-in-all it will go ignored and they will have their building, unless the people make themselves heard. Turn off your comupter, herd together and let them hear your voice as 1. Otherwise, love each other here and play nice. Now kiss and make up and go make a difference for the better please. :)
Love ya!
Sorry about the long message but I'm unsure about deleting some of the quote, but I'll try.
Yeah, the WYSIWYG editor isn't.And I don't think any part of this discussion has been "off-topic". We are discussing the lower Manhattan Mosque, the Constitution, and religion in the USA. I find this discussion interesting and that it has gotten away from the typical flame war posts. Now if only I would proof my messages better....
Sounds like three different topics to me. ( not counting the flame wars )
I merely wish to not have it wander TOO far, and provide more amunition for the intolerant, opinionated, who seek confrontation above communication and understanding.Yes, the Supreme Court is appointed but what they rule on is still the law-of-the-land. If it is changed that becomes the law-of-the-land. That's how our system works.
And perhaps we'll see yet another court ruling, if/when they are asked.When has the government forced a private individual to remove a nativity scene from private property? One reason I ask this is I teach an International Baccalaureate class called Theory of Knowledge. In the class I challenge what the students say so that they learn to look and listen to what they say and are able to make clearer statements of knowledge. I can't let unsubstantiated statements go by.
OK, it wasn't the Federal gubmint per 'se, it was a local city government. A Cleveland suburb, maybe ? Detroit, perhaps ? It was all over the news a few years ago, but at my age, specifics are lost under hundreds of feet of sediment accumulated over the eons.And for all you who think we are off topic: what do we do with the two Mosques already in the area of Ground Zero? Make them leave, convert?
IMHO, leave well enough alone. There's no issue with what's already there, only with what's proposed to be built, and WHY !
Unfortunately, the media has slanted it way too far.
1. It's NOT a mosque ! It's a culteral center. The stated intent of which is to resolve differences, and promote understanding.
2. The folks building it ARE sensitive to the issues, and working to resolve them with the folks ( such as those who lost loved ones in the attacks ) pertinent to the discussions.
3. There is NO constitutional issue. Merely one of good taste and decorum, which the media has fanned into a highly emotionally charged non-issue.
4. It *may* become a local legal issue if the politicians make it so.
5. Public opinion will change. It may take 30 years, but it will.Clearly, there is more to this situation than building a mosque. And the Republicans are making political hay out of the situation.
Not just republicans ! Too many on all sides of the isle are using this as a forum on which to grind their own ax, whether relevant or not.
( but what do we expect from Republicrats ? )And as usual, many people think that religious freedom in the USA only applies to them.
Sad, but too true.
If they have 2 mosques in the area, THERE IS NO NEED FOR A THIRD ONE.
I can't argue with your logic.
Correction: There is one mosque and one community center. The location of the proposed center is already used for those same purposes. They are only planning on building a new center to replace the one that is currently present. Also as a point, construction in relation to Islam usually takes some time as this religion does not allow for the paying of monetary interest to a person or bank.
OK, it wasn't the Federal gubmint per 'se, it was a local city government. A Cleveland suburb, maybe ? Detroit, perhaps ? It was all over the news a few years ago, but at my age, specifics are lost under hundreds of feet of sediment accumulated over the eons..
But that comes under the Constitutional protection of government establishing a religion. It doesn't have to be the Federal government.
Was this perhaps a deed restricted neighborhood? Yes, they may have asked the individual to pull down the ornamentation; but the question that I would ask is, "Do they require EVERYONE to keep their yard and home free of ornamentation?" I have lived in several communities that are like that.
But that comes under the Constitutional protection of government establishing a religion. It doesn't have to be the Federal government.
The Constitution doesn't have ANY language as you suggest.
The language is as I quoted on the previous page, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
which certainly restricts Congress ONLY, so by extension the Federal gubmint, not the States nor local municipalities, as Congress is the ONLY body that is empowered to make law universally applicable to the entire country. Several States and municipalities have laws respecting established religion(s). If there is a constitutional clause restricting States and municipalities from doing so, ( and there may be ) I am not aware of it.
Was this perhaps a deed restricted neighborhood? Yes, they may have asked the individual to pull down the ornamentation; but the question that I would ask is, "Do they require EVERYONE to keep their yard and home free of ornamentation?" I have lived in several communities that are like that.
No. The homeowner's defense was that the display was the same one they'd been doing for some 20 years,or some such.
As I say, I don't remember many of the details, save that it was a big deal at the time.
I seem to recall that other "holiday" displays in the same neighborhood were allowed, while a Nativity seen was not, and that THAT was the problem.
how come the seperation of church and state doesn't apply to the courtroom?
Again, there is NO SUCH THING as separation of church and state !
There is merely a constitutional prohibition against a state church.what if someone is atheist or agnostic and they are called as a witness?should they have to swear to something they don't believe in?
YES !! When in Rome....
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!