Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop:   Original Seeds Store Cannabis Seeds, Compare CBD, Medical Cannabis Seeds   Amazon Ayahuasca, San Pedro

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineTwirling
Barred Spiral
Male

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms
    #3860267 - 03/03/05 12:26 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Within the past month, the Bush administration has targeted the targeted the use of ayahuasca by a church while also supporting the appeal of the Supreme Court ruling that the Ten Commandments be taken down.

Doesn't this seem hypocritical to blatantly show support for your own religion, while explicitly targeting another religion's freedoms? I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but it's really fucked up.


--------------------
The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: Twirling]
    #3860312 - 03/03/05 12:35 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

They are not against the other religion, only that religion's use of illicit hallucinogenic drugs.

It would appear to stem from their guise of being tough on drugs and trying to stop all "loopholes", whether for religious or medical reasons. They also do not differentiate between a normal citizen using DMT and a religion using DMT, or any other illegal drug for that matter, just as the DEA and the federal government does not differentiate between a medical marijuana user and a recreational one.

If they could take peyote away from the Native Americans I'm sure the Bush administration would in a heartbeat, but as it is I can't honestly see one group of religious Indians allowed to use mescaline but another religious group prohibited from using DMT.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDigitalDuality
enthusiast

Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 11 years, 13 days
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: Ravus]
    #3861496 - 03/03/05 10:06 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
They are not against the other religion, only that religion's use of illicit hallucinogenic drugs.





I'm not against Christianity, just government endorsement through 10 commandment displays on property owned by the tax payer.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3861638 - 03/03/05 11:02 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

The Ten Commandments are a Jewish thing. They existed centuries before Christ was born.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDigitalDuality
enthusiast

Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 11 years, 13 days
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: Phred]
    #3861646 - 03/03/05 11:05 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

The Old Testament is recognized pretty equally among Christians and Jews.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3861668 - 03/03/05 11:20 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

DigitalDuality said:
Quote:

Ravus said:
They are not against the other religion, only that religion's use of illicit hallucinogenic drugs.





I'm not against Christianity, just government endorsement through 10 commandment displays on property owned by the tax payer.




And the word "god" on our currency? In our founding documents? Shall we re-write them all to make you happy?


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDigitalDuality
enthusiast

Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 11 years, 13 days
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: SoopaX]
    #3861686 - 03/03/05 11:31 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

They shouldn't haven't be re-written to begin with in the 1950s. Why did we HAVE to change that? I know why, so a bunch of christians could hi-jack the dead desit roots of our Founding Fathers for their own marketing and special interest agenda, on my tax dollars. Most of our Founders has a REASONING there was a god, not a belief. This was the basis of Deism. The closest thing to Deism today, in terms of "God", is the theory of intelligent design. They thought that a god had to exist, a god, a force.. something, some kind of ultimate architect for all this we see around us day in and day out. It had nothing to do with church, bibles, dogmatic ceremonies and traditions. It had nothign to do with official prayer. It had to do with logical reasoning.

And in fact, this logicial reasoning disappeared, when Darwinism gained acceptance Deism fell, as now a new logical explination to our existence started to immerge. When Deism fell b/c these questions were brought up their followers seemed to split, some following reason went towards theories of science, others went to religion.

So to me it's always quite funny to me the various religious sects in this country that claim the words "Nature's God" in our Declaration of Independence, use Deism as a justification for religious special interest in this country. B/c believe me... Deists had about as much respect for religion as modern day athiests/agnostics do. I'm not saying Deists where atheist though by any means, I'm just saying Deists weren't rooted in religion and faith. They avoided "faith" in corrupting their thought process at all costs.

Quote:


Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason and experience rather than on faith or revelation, and thus a form of theism in opposition to fideism. Deism is usually synonymous with natural religion in 18th century Enlightenment writings, but a modern but small movement exists that is steadily growing in size. Deism originated in 17th century Europe, gaining popularity in the 18th century Enlightenment especially in France, England, and America as a modernist movement inspired by the success of the scientific method. Deists emphasize the exclusive application of reason and personal experience to religious questions. Deism is concerned with those truths which humans can discover through a process of reasoning, independent of any claimed divine revelation through scripture or prophets.

Many Deists hold different views into what they believe the nature of God to be but this does not define Deism but rather is the speculative process of the individual. One common such view is the classical view that the universe was created by a God who then makes no further intervention in its affairs, often expressed by the metaphor of the "Divine Watchmaker" with creation being self-regulating. In this view, the reason God does not intervene in the world (via miracles) is not simply that he does not care, but rather that he has already created the best of all possible worlds and any intervention could not improve it. Historically, many Deists adhered to this view but other views into the nature of God were prominent as well. Another non-defining view is that God intervenes only as a subtle and persuasive force in the universe.

Historical and modern Deism are defined by the view that reason should be the basis of belief and that the nature of God is generally incomprehensible as reason is limited in its ability to understand the qualities of God.

The view of an impersonal and abstract God has caused many to claim that Deism is "cold" and akin to atheism. However, Deists maintain that the opposite is true and that this view leads to a feeling of awe and reverence based on the fact that personal growth and a constant search for knowledge is required. This knowledge can be acquired from many sources including historical and modern interpretations found in the many varied fields of science (biology, physics, etc.) and philosophy. While many religions have an adversarial opposition to modern views such as those found in science, this is not an issue for Deism -- as reconcilation and unification are desired.

There are other religions such as Roman Catholicism that believe that the existence of God can be known via reason; however, they also believe that miracles and revelations occur and are required for man to truly understand God at the expense of reason (rather than exclusive application). Furthermore, these religions specifically define the nature of God with a belief that man's relationship is personal.

The words Deism and theism are closely related and this sometimes leads to controversy. The root of the word "deism" is from the Latin deus, while the root of the word theism comes from the Greek theos, both meaning god in English. In practice there are a range of beliefs encompassed by both theism and Deism; however, theism can include faith or revelation as a basis for belief while Deism includes only belief which can be substantiated through reason.

18th century popularity

Deism developed in response to Newtonian physics, by which matter is seen to behave in a manner mathematically predictable by natural laws. It was popular among thinkers of the Enlightenment such as Voltaire and the Founding Fathers of the United States. Perhaps deistic thinkers were impressed by Newton's apparent demonstration that reason could finally settle problems that formerly were thought to be permanently controversial, and thus hoped to also settle religious questions permanently and scientifically by reason alone, without revelation. One thing held in common among early deists was that organized religion was harmful to private and public morals, and that reason was the essential element in making moral decisions.

Newtonian physics is rather deterministic, and so Deism based on that might not seem like it has much room for hope. Of some relevance in response to this are newer theories in physics, most notably quantum mechanics, which has both a non-deterministic interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation), and deterministic interpretations (the transactional interpretation and many-worlds interpretation).

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are perhaps the most well-known of the American founding Deists. Thomas Paine published The Age of Reason, a tract that popularized Deism throughout America and Europe.

Appellations for divinity

The names used for the divinity by Deists include the following:

* Creator (used in the United States Declaration of Independence)
* Divine Author
* Divine Providence (used in the United States Declaration of Independence)
* Divine Watchmaker
* First Cause
* Grand Architect
* Nature's God (used in the United States Declaration of Independence)
* Providence

Decline in popularity

Several factors contributed to a general decline in the popularity of Deism, including:

* the writings of David Hume (and later, Charles Darwin) increased doubt about the first cause argument and the argument from design
* loss of confidence that reason and rationalism could solve all problems
* criticisms of excesses of the French Revolution
* criticisms that Deism was not significantly distinct from pantheism, and then that pantheism was not significantly different from atheism
* criticisms that freethought would lead inevitably to atheism
* frustration with the determinism implicit in "This is the best of all possible worlds."
* rise of Unitarianism, which adopted many of its ideas
* it remained a personal philosophy and never became an organized movement
* an anti-deist and anti-reason campaign by Christian clergymen to villify and equate deism with atheism in public opinion






So since Deism was never a "religion" and it showed no respect to dogmatic texts, why do christians use the name association of the improper noun "god", "supreme architect" for a philisophical reasoning in order to push their particular moral agenda?

See the "in god we trust" and "under god" in this country was placed on bills and in the pledge, by Christians. It is in reference to the Jeudo-Christian God. They've played bait and switch with terminology from a dead philosophy. You think that's fair? To hi-jack a movement's terminology, when no one alive can stand up and defend it? Where's the deist group standing up and setting these people straight? There is none.

So it does tend to fall back on the "religion haters", the "evil liberals" ,and the moronic special interst groups who kiss Muslim ass, yet hate Christianity.. the lines start getting blurred all over the place. B/c in reality, the left really has waged a war on God to the point of it being unconstitutional. The ACLU went after a little girl riding a bus reading the bible, for instance. There's members of the left that want to use government to irradicate religion. I find that far different from kicking religion out of government. And this is where the religious right gains their strength. They take people such as myself, and the religion hating fucks who would shit all over people's personal rights and freedoms, and just lump us all together. And it works suprisingly well in the mass media to enrage the right wing of this nation.

But don't act like Christian's hi-jacking another belief system in order to maintain or gain power is something new. Most of the dates and ceremonies surrounding holidays, are pagan in origin. Under Rome, in Ireland, in Britain.. Christianity molded many religions into a odd Pagan-christian hybrid that has resulted in the very religion most christains today worship. The leaders of Rome, though Pagan saw they were on a losing side of the battle and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. It settled down many violent disputes, battles, that were going on in Rome and threatening to tear it apart.

Christian's confusing terminology, mixing reasonings back and forth between belief systems in order to gain political power, militar might, and a moral influence through law.. isn't something new. It's been done again and again and again, and it works. Much like how Bush was able to switch reasonings to go into Iraq, again and again and again.. keep the people confused...change the story slightly, little by little, and people won't even notice.

Amendment I

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.

------------------------------
Lets think about this, no law RESPECTING religon. In other words, showing favortism of one religion over another.

So to go back to the old arguement of the 10 commandment displays being taken to the federal supreme court.. if they were decide to promote Judge Moore's decision in this matter, don't you think that would be "respecting a religion"? A particular one at that?

What about abortion for instance. Most of your major religions see it as murder, yet there's no scientific evidence to really define it as such. Terms of life and death, in situations such as this lay back on a particular faith. Why should that faith be legislated?

Marriage.. between gays and straights, seems to be fought so hardly for b/c the term marriage is religious in its connotation. Religious groups love the religious word to be confused with the legal terminology. When the easiest thing to do would be "civil unions for all". Showing no respect to religion, and no infringing on religious freedom.

The pledge and dollar bills, christians placed these slogans on these things in the 1950s, a national song, and federally made money. Again, this is our federal government Respecting a religion.

May I also state, it truly saddens me that Christians maintain an arrogance about this amendment, for this amendment was created to protect religion, much more than it was to protect the atheist. The puritans and various protestants fled here to avoid persecution from the angelican church.

Today we have politicians in the Republican, Democrat (and some who never get officei n the Constitution) Parties. They quote scripture, the push legislation based on religious morality.. and Christians cheer it on, claiming that as long as congress doesn't establish a church it will all be A-OK. They seem to think they can control this slippery slope. They seem to think they have the power to keep that fine line from going to an extreme that atheists and christains alike can agree on.. and that's power hungry, greedy politicians using religion for whatever they want to leed the sheep themselves, by twisting the word of god any way the see fit.

What exactly has to be done before people realize the politician's agenda for using religion.. isn't much different than.. Bin Laden, Hitler, British Kings that established and enforced the Angelican church. What exactly is pushing too far.. and how to you plan to convince the mass public not to listen to a particular poltician promoting a particular religious agenda that going against what even the christians want when it comes to government involvement in the church, religion, and God.

There was a point and time when human beings really didn't distinguish between their political leaders and their religious ones... they were one and the same. Even in the modern day world (last 100 years or so) we see nations reverting back to this time and again.

Why do you think America is "invincible" to this type of religious abuse and tyranny?

Believe me this isn't about political correctness, this isn't about the minority buddhist, hindhu, atheist, agnostic, or shinto practitioner. This is about christiany. This is about the Jews. This is about protecting us all, the freedom we hold sacred, the religion, faith, or lack thereof we hold in our hearts.

No politician will tell me how to get into heaven, no politician holds that key, has the right to judge me on that level. Not even the Supreme Court does. No power hungry shithead needs to be preaching and/or enforcing morality unto me. If there is a God, let him be my judge. Let God rest in my heart, or allow me to reject him. Don't use my tax dollars to "save me".

Tell me why the parties/groups as diverse as theLibertarian Party , the ACLU , some Democrats, and the Green Party (see #7) can pretty much agree on this, yet the war mongering, corporately corrupt, pro-capital punishment Republicans cannot? It doesn't make sense to me. The mostly conservative Libertarians who pride themselves on their understanding and strict adherance to the Constitution, the extremely liberal, environmentally friendly..and even socialist Greens, the left mainstream Democrats, the nutjob ACLU all have a pretty common thread on this topic. But nope, not the religious mass that votes Republican. I just don't get it.



I think it's very interesting that most of Western Europe has far less in the way of "separation of church and state" than the United States does -- many European countries require religious education in the public school, publicly fund a certain religion, or even have an official church. Yet religion today is far stronger in the USA than in Western Europe....

For example, in the UK, "There are two established (or state) churches, the Church of England (Anglican) and the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian).... A government grants program helps to fund repair and maintenance of listed places of worship of all religions nationwide... The advancement of religion is considered to be a charitable purpose... The Government provides funding for a large number of so-called "faith schools."... The law requires religious education in publicly maintained schools throughout the country.... In addition, schools have to provide a daily act of collective worship. In practice, this action mainly is Christian in character, reflecting Christianity's importance in the religious life of the country."

In Denmark, "There is an official state religion. The Constitution stipulates that the Evangelical Lutheran Church is the national church, the reigning monarch shall be a member of it, and the state shall support it. The Evangelical Lutheran Church is the only religious organization that can receive state subsidies or funds directly through the tax system... While the Evangelical Lutheran faith is taught in the public schools, a student may withdraw from religious classes with parental consent."

In Switzerland, "Most of the 26 cantons (with the exception of Geneva and Neuchatel, where church and religion are separated) financially support at least one of the three traditional denominations--Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, or Protestant--with funds collected through taxation... Religious education is taught in most public cantonal schools, with the exception of Geneva and Neuchatel."

In Spain "the Government treats religions in different ways. Catholicism is the dominant religion, and enjoys the closest official relationship with the Government.... Among the various benefits enjoyed by the Catholic Church is financing through the tax system... Jews, Muslims, and Protestants have official status through bilateral agreements, but enjoy fewer privileges." Same thing in Italy, "There is no state religion; however, the Catholic Church enjoys some privileges, stemming from its sovereign status and its historical political authority, not available to other faiths... For example, the Church is allowed to select Catholic teachers, paid by the State, to provide instruction in "hour of religion" courses taught in the public schools."

(all from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/ )

Doesn't this suggest that the biggest beneficiary of a strict separation of church and state is actually religion? Conservative Christians in the USA who complain about the government being too secular and not giving Christianity its rightful place in the world often seem to assume that a more secular government means a more secular nation.... but it may be doing exactly the opposite. Liberal secularists might ironically be the best friend Christianity has...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3861858 - 03/03/05 12:29 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

I am against state-sponsored religion and laws, but this 10 commandment thing looks trivial.


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDigitalDuality
enthusiast

Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 11 years, 13 days
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: looner2]
    #3862146 - 03/03/05 01:37 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

So if the government started giving special interest endorsement to say.. Buddha, Allah, .. or even other groups outside of religion...such as blacks, gays, southerners, ..through displays or messages on our money, i guess that would be ok b/c it's so trivial right?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3862182 - 03/03/05 01:48 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

DigitalDuality said:
So if the government started giving special interest endorsement to say.. Buddha, Allah, .. or even other groups outside of religion...such as blacks, gays, southerners, ..through displays or messages on our money, i guess that would be ok b/c it's so trivial right?




:thumbup:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3862257 - 03/03/05 02:08 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

DigitalDuality said:
They shouldn't haven't be re-written to begin with in the 1950s. Why did we HAVE to change that?




Are you stating that currency previous to 1950s did not have allusions to God on it? I'm not a currency fan, other than modern currency of course, so I don't know for sure.
Quote:


I know why, so a bunch of christians could hi-jack the dead desit roots of our Founding Fathers for their own marketing and special interest agenda, on my tax dollars.




Heh, marketing god? How are they making profit off of the use of God on the bills?
Quote:


Most of our Founders has a REASONING there was a god, not a belief. This was the basis of Deism. The closest thing to Deism today, in terms of "God", is the theory of intelligent design. They thought that a god had to exist, a god, a force.. something, some kind of ultimate architect for all this we see around us day in and day out. It had nothing to do with church, bibles, dogmatic ceremonies and traditions. It had nothign to do with official prayer. It had to do with logical reasoning.




I'm sure that these people did believe in Christ and the "holy" trinity. You'll probably show me all these quotes in which they discuss "god" but not Jesus, and I'd say the same thing about Bush. He doesn't discuss his mandate from Christ, he talks about "God".
Quote:


And in fact, this logicial reasoning disappeared, when Darwinism gained acceptance Deism fell, as now a new logical explination to our existence started to immerge. When Deism fell b/c these questions were brought up their followers seemed to split, some following reason went towards theories of science, others went to religion.




Heh, I'm not religious at all. But the founding fathers of this country were, so in deference to them and in thanks for their belief system forming this nation and the laws (the original laws, re: Constitution), I'm not upset that people want to continue their traditions.
Quote:


Gigantic snip of off-topic, useless information





I don't care about their religious beliefs. They believed in God and they saw fit to make the Constitution and other laws modelled around their belief in God. I live in the country that they founded. Why don't you move to BumFuckistan and start protesting their theocratic governments and see how open and other societies are. This nation was founded by Christians, at least deists, and it's their laws that we follow here. If you don't like the US history there, move to a nation that is as powerful as us that doesn't have god in their founding documents and principles


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDigitalDuality
enthusiast

Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 11 years, 13 days
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: SoopaX]
    #3862346 - 03/03/05 02:33 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Are you stating that currency previous to 1950s did not have allusions to God on it? I'm not a currency fan, other than modern currency of course, so I don't know for sure.




IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957.

Quote:

Heh, marketing god? How are they making profit off of the use of God on the bills?




It's called endorsement of a religion. And if you haven't noticed getting more people to attend church seems to help out that particular power structure.
It's also an endorsement of a certain political sect of this country, giving certain favoritism to christian political leaders rather than others.


Quote:

I'm sure that these people did believe in Christ and the "holy" trinity. You'll probably show me all these quotes in which they discuss "god" but not Jesus, and I'd say the same thing about Bush. He doesn't discuss his mandate from Christ, he talks about "God".





Since you're probably aware that Thomas Jefferson referred to the Bible as a "dunghill", and that persons such as Adams, Paine, Franklin, Madison all made various negative quotes aobut the bible, religious power structures I won't bother.

I'm not saying they didn't believe in christ. Hell, i do to a degree. I believe he was a man with a great philsophy on life. I don't believe he was the son of god and i don't buy the superstitious mumbo jumbo either. And there's no references showing that those men i listed claiming that they hold jesus, the holy trinity, or anything completely faith based in the same high esteem as the christian right of today. They were deists (who were attacked at the time by christian groups due to their closeness to atheism)

Quote:

Heh, I'm not religious at all. But the founding fathers of this country were, so in deference to them and in thanks for their belief system forming this nation and the laws (the original laws, re: Constitution), I'm not upset that people want to continue their traditions.





Neither were the framers..so i have a problem with one religious group hi-jacking terminology out of a dead philosophy no one follows anymore for their own special interest.

Quote:

I don't care about their religious beliefs. They believed in God and they saw fit to make the Constitution and other laws modelled around their belief in God. I live in the country that they founded. Why don't you move to BumFuckistan and start protesting their theocratic governments and see how open and other societies are. This nation was founded by Christians, at least deists, and it's their laws that we follow here. If you don't like the US history there, move to a nation that is as powerful as us that doesn't have god in their founding documents and principles





No you're missing the point. They didn't claim what/who god was. They didn't BELIEVE, they reasoned through philosophy, not dogma and faith. There were no set morals and rules to deism. There was no deist church. There was no organized power structure for that philosophy (not religion). They simply believed that the world is so complex that a higher power created the earth. When scientific reasonings arose to give possible explinations (evolution for example) deism seemed to fall. I have no problem showing respect to a historic philosophy based on reason, i do have a problem with the religious right pretending these men worshipped christ and using that as the catalyst for their special interest.

The original post to this thread is a good example (though not a great arguement b/c drugs has it's own seperate agenda), but while our government kisses christian ass, others get spat on. Get special interest out of our government. This includes God, this included affirtmative action, this includes hetero-only marriages, this includes giving property tax cuts to churches but not the businesses sitting beside them... This includes welfare to the poor, AND corporate welfare.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery Arcade Champion: Yeti Sports

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 1 year, 18 days
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: SoopaX]
    #3862438 - 03/03/05 03:00 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

SoopaX said:
Quote:

DigitalDuality said:
They shouldn't haven't be re-written to begin with in the 1950s. Why did we HAVE to change that?




Are you stating that currency previous to 1950s did not have allusions to God on it? I'm not a currency fan, other than modern currency of course, so I don't know for sure.





From The US Treasury

Quote:

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.





"One Nation Under God" In the Pledge

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: Twirling]
    #3862514 - 03/03/05 03:17 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Morals and values are the job of the church, family and the community. Ensuring that all churches, families, and communities have equal representation is the job of the government. Problems arise when the two groups are mixed... things like abortion clinic bombings, the war on drugs, military police actions, etc...


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: Seuss]
    #3862528 - 03/03/05 03:21 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
Morals and values are the job of the church, family and the community.  Ensuring that all churches, families, and communities have equal representation is the job of the government.  Problems arise when the two groups are mixed... things like abortion clinic bombings, the war on drugs, military police actions, etc...




:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3862918 - 03/03/05 04:33 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

So if the government started giving special interest endorsement to say.. Buddha, Allah, .. or even other groups outside of religion...such as blacks, gays, southerners, ..through displays or messages on our money, i guess that would be ok b/c it's so trivial right?

Did you even read my post before you wrote this? What does "giving special interest endorsement" (whatever that means) have to do with a monument of the ten commandments outside of a building?


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: looner2]
    #3862931 - 03/03/05 04:35 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Well, it provides that to some degree the government is taking sides and not being fair in it's expression of objectivity in politics and the nature of seperation of church and state.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #3862962 - 03/03/05 04:39 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

No, the statue was a gift given to the state, not some mystical stone brainwashing our politicians to obey the lord.

If they do in fact, utilize religious beliefs as a basis for laws, then that should be challenged and fought to the end. This is a noble pursuit.

The removal of a stone monument makes those who are arguing for it to be removed look petty and childish.

Choose your battles wisely and people will view you as wise.


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: looner2]
    #3863088 - 03/03/05 04:57 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Even so, it obviously is a problem regardless of how it ended up their. The issue isn't what the state is in fact doing nor how the monument ended up their, it's the message that is conveyed from it. It has nothing to do with being childish, petty, or anything to that degree. It has everything to do with having a government that truly does represent each and every denomination equally without any favortism that can be attained by such actions (as having a monument in a public situation conveys something to that degree).

Take your own advice.

off to the store, write me another message while I'm away.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Edited by Psychoactive1984 (03/03/05 05:04 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Re: The Bush Administration's Hypocrisy on Religious Freedoms [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #3863135 - 03/03/05 05:03 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

What favortism is provided by a hunk of stone?

Keep in mind this is irregardless of any actual laws.


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop:   Original Seeds Store Cannabis Seeds, Compare CBD, Medical Cannabis Seeds   Amazon Ayahuasca, San Pedro

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* So, what if the Bush administration wins? djamor 591 7 03/31/03 04:25 PM
by Azmodeus
* Bush Administration Proposes System to Monitor Internet
( 1 2 3 all )
Evolving 2,859 42 12/24/02 01:41 AM
by frogsheath
* Bush Administration's continued attack on MMJ patients
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 3,560 48 04/27/04 10:08 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Bush Administration Most Corrupt In US History
( 1 2 all )
ekomstop 2,508 34 11/01/04 02:46 AM
by Rose
* The Bush administration's top forty lies.
( 1 2 all )
bukkake 1,725 20 08/22/05 08:58 PM
by ShroomOmatic
* Bush administration rewarded the Taliban for 'controlling' the opium crop! LSDempire 1,405 14 08/29/05 11:54 PM
by Redstorm
* FUCK THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
( 1 2 3 4 all )
AuntieIrie 3,563 75 04/15/07 01:48 AM
by zorbman
* GAO - Bush administration violated anti-propaganda law grib 1,119 18 05/21/04 05:37 PM
by Mushmonkey

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
2,375 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Edabea
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.072 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 20 queries.