Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes it is. The state is the government. Until the government is doing religious things separation of church and state does not come into play. It does not mean that no one can be religious, and no one argues it does.They are in a public place going to an event between two private enterprises in a build probably owned by another private group. While an atheist may not like it he has no standing to force everyone else to change what they're doing (unless Objectivists took over when I wasn't looking).
No if he were at a government event and the person running it asked everyone to stand up and sing God Bless America he would have a valid complaint.
He was arrested for breaking an established law that prohibited approaching women trying to enter the clinic. Carrying the sign was irrelevant to his conviction.
Question my friend: would an atheist have a valid complaint in this case?
"During a live television broadcast on the evening of the September 11 attacks, following addresses by then-House and Senate leaders Dennis Hastert and Tom Daschle, members of the United States Congress broke out into an apparently spontaneous verse of "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_America#cite_note-7
The gentleman broke no law. Re-read the article. He did not come within eight feet of the women entering the clinic. In fact, there was a video tape that should have exonerated him.
More religious persecution: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/09/say_grace_go_to_jail.html
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Question my friend: would an atheist have a valid complaint in this case?[b]"During a live television broadcast on the evening of the September 11 attacks, following addresses by then-House and Senate leaders Dennis Hastert and Tom Daschle, members of the United States Congress broke out into an apparently spontaneous verse of "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_America#cite_note-7[/B]
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Probably because it was written by Irving Berlin in the early 1900s and has nothing at all to do with Thomas Jefferson or the foundation of the United States.
馃槅
That should really end the thread, shouldn't it?
Originally posted by Digi
lol at Sym's response. Amen.Even if one is "for" God, overwrought nationalism can be a scary thing in such a context. "God Bless America, to the exclusion of or at least indifference toward other countries" is the subtext here. Or if it isn't, that's at least how it plays out in a cultural setting all too often. Go to a place in the country where God and Country are critical points of pride in the populace, and I'll show you an increased likelihood of bigotry toward those of other religions or nationalities.
That's a very negative interpretation. 馃檨 So depressing. 馃檨 馃檨
You presume that by God blessing America, that takes away the blessings he would have given to another nation. I don't believe that. In fact, in my faith, the blessings are right there, waiting to be given, if we ask...we just have to have faith and be good.(For an atheist, it means doing "good" things and you bless yourself but religious folks like to say that God blessed them with it instead of their own actions blessing them.) Part of asking for God to Bless America would be asking for prosperity for other nations because we are "global" world, now. Asking America to prosper is asking for other nations to prosper by proxy AND asking for those nations to prosper because we also benefit from other nations propsering.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Granted. But it still appears to me to be an issue that pertains to the premise that God and state should be kept separate.Again, I fully support the song but I am speaking on behalf of all those who do not wish for this song to a part of America's heritage and legacy.
So, again, why does this song continue to have a place in America? Shouldn't it be banned just like other things of a religious nature in this country?
Separation of church and state is a rule about the state not passing laws discriminating for or against religions.
It does not cover popular songs, as there's no state involved. Fun fact though, Woodie Guthrie wrote his famous "This Land is Your Land" as a response to "God Bless America" which I suppose he viewed in a negative light.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Question my friend: would an atheist have a valid complaint in this case?[b]"During a live television broadcast on the evening of the September 11 attacks, following addresses by then-House and Senate leaders Dennis Hastert and Tom Daschle, members of the United States Congress broke out into an apparently spontaneous verse of "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_America#cite_note-7 [/B]
I don't think so. They're all adults there (so no one is having a particular faith impressed upon them) and no one was asked or required to join in the song. They weren't even inside the building doing their jobs as representatives at the time.
I do think it's weird, but then I suspect it would have been weird no matter what they were singing.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The gentleman broke no law. Re-read the article. He did not come within eight feet of the women entering the clinic. In fact, there was a video tape that should have exonerated him.
The tape didn't cover the whole time he was there. It seems to me that the intimidation meant to be prevented by the law was clearly present.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
More religious persecution:http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/09/say_grace_go_to_jail.html
Leading grace in a public school is definitely inappropriate. He is an authority figure working with children so he should operate within his guidelines and not try to see how far he can push them. I don't know if it's something he should be jailed over.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It appears to fit Syms criteria for what would constitute a valid complaint.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Leading grace in a public school is definitely inappropriate. He is an authority figure working with children so he should operate within his guidelines and not try to see how far he can push them. I don't know if it's something he should be jailed over.
Fined and/or fired seems appropriate.
I am fine with the no religion being in schools. That should really be between the children and the parents.
There are some cooky-freaky religious freaks out there: I'd much rather have the option as a parent, to get to chose which adults teach my children their religious beliefs. Sure, sounds limiting, but that's my job and right as a parent.
Really, though, I'm going to be open with my children about religion. I won't be like "YOU CAN'T GO TO THAT CHURCH! DEY IZ DUH DEVUHLZ!"
I like separation of church and state...it's good stuff.
I'm not sure I'm fine with students getting problems for bringing their religion to school, though I can see why it may make sense. But teachers should not favour any religion over another in their capacity.
And you got it easy, dadudemon, your faith gives your children a fair chance, if you were of one of those one chance in life or you are ****ed maybe you'd be more forceful in the upbringing of your children.
chris rock said it best in his movie: head of state: "God bless every one"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igg8NYlZZJ8
on the pastor thing. i dont think he should have bn arrested nor charged but it just shows how ppl can abuse the law to harass some one and the fault lies on the ppl for continuously broadening what constitutes harassment.
Originally posted by King Castle
on the pastor thing. i dont think he should have bn arrested nor charged butm it just shows how ppl can abuse the law to harass some one and the fault lies on the ppl for continuously broadening what constitutes harassment.
Even though he was blatantly trying to intimidate people and wanted to hide behind the strict letter of the law? You were just talking about how people like that suck.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not sure I'm fine with students getting problems for bringing their religion to school, though I can see why it may make sense. But teachers should not favour any religion over another in their capacity.And you got it easy, dadudemon, your faith gives your children a fair chance, if you were of one of those one chance in life or you are ****ed maybe you'd be more forceful in the upbringing of your children.
I'm all for the students doing whatever they want...as long as they do not have to use the state's money to do so. "Flag pole" gatherings for prayer, before school, work nicely. No money required for them to pray around a flag...God is footing the bill for the "air conditioning" lol!
lol
What religion does that? One mistake and the whole thing is messed up?
Also, yeah, there are several Christian religions out there that believe a finite number of people go to heaven and everyone else ****s off. That's a really sh*tty way to believe, imo. How depressing, no?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaosi dont know what you are referring to.
Even though he was blatantly trying to intimidate people and wanted to hide behind the strict letter of the law? You were just talking about how people like that suck.
i oppose many laws and its application on ppl. i believe ppl can rule themselves and keep from hurting others. i dont see anything wrong with a person walking with a sign on a side walk let alone being arrested for it.
being on private property and trespassing is one thing, assaulting some one is another. but, simply walking about exercising your civil/constitutional rights and being arrested is wrong.
but, my problem is ppl abusing the law to harass another and winning b/c of arbitrary concepts that dont hurt anyone and has nothing to do with justice.
Depends.
From a Jehovah's Witness perspective, there is a finite number of people who go into heaven, but that is because they're going there to help Jesus rule the Earth, not to just... chill. It's the non 144 thousand who stay here after Armageddon ends and the world is turned into a paradise and everyone lives forever; and those guys get to just chill and enjoy the place. So, not a bad thing to believe I guess.
Too bad it's all fairy tails. 馃槚hifty:
Originally posted by King Castle
Such a damn good movie. lol
I forgot how awesome that debate seen was.
Why IS AIDS meds more expensive than crack? (The cost of supply.)
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Depends.From a Jehovah's Witness perspective, there is a finite number of people who go into heaven, but that is because they're going there to help Jesus rule the Earth, not to just... chill. It's the non 144 thousand who stay here after Armageddon ends and the world is turned into a paradise and everyone lives forever; and those guys get to just chill and enjoy the place. So, not a bad thing to believe I guess.
Too bad it's all fairy tails. 馃槚hifty:
AHA! So it's the Jay Dubs! Knew there was a religion that believed that. We also believe that the Earth will be changed into a paradise, but it will not be "heaven." All have the chance and ability to go to heaven, in my faith. That means living in God's presence (chillin'.)
Originally posted by inimalist
trust me on this, no we wouldn't
I think you missed his point. Everyone's moral compass would eventually result in the possessors of extreme moral compasses being snuffed out. 313
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Damn you Mormons and your radical beliefs!
馃槅
The more I learn about JWs, the more I realize how similar our religions are. How many religions out there believe the Earth will be changed into a heaven-like paradise during the millennium?
Originally posted by King Castle
i dont know what you are referring to.
Using lawyers to try and escape the justice.
Originally posted by King Castle
i believe ppl can rule themselves and keep from hurting others.
Too bad both rational analysis of people and millenia of evidence completely contradict you.
Originally posted by King Castle
i dont see anything wrong with a person walking with a sign on a side walk let alone being arrested for it.
Which is an argument that would only have merit if he was arrested for protesting. You need to read more than the title of the article.
Originally posted by King Castle
being on private property and trespassing is one thing, assaulting some one is another. but, simply walking about exercising your civil/constitutional rights and being arrested is wrong.but, my problem is ppl abusing the law to harass another and winning b/c of arbitrary concepts that dont hurt anyone and has nothing to do with justice.
Sorry, there is no civil right to intimidate people in their most vulnerable moments or at all for that matter. Don't pretend that just because he put on a smile it's not intimidation.