What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA?

I think it would be appropriate for you to copy the quote and link to the post.Things are on the edge of being a bit heated. You might want to simply point to the facts and not make any assertions at all.(yea, yeas, this is not a moderated forum, but maybe this will help)

If you want to claim that my position is tantamount to State sponsorship of religion then fine - that is your opinion.However, I did not actually say or imply that.The Courts enforcing the First Amendment is not forcing the State to sponsor religion, it is forcing the State to not entangle itself with religion.

I just want to reiterate that the separation of church and state is also referred to as "entanglement", meaning, the less entanglement the more the separation.

Willowtree That is twice you have refused to answer me and evaded my questions by making insinuations of my motives.If you are at a loss to answer for the shortcomings on your part to apply the teachings you so vehemently adhere to be man enough to say so and do not presume that you have any clue as to what I want or do not want sir.The fact that you make points that you refuse to address without attacking the man placing them says volumes about the face you show the world.And by the way do have yourself a good day alright?

---

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

Just what would you describe any and all of the early Christian Communities if not Socialistic?Come on now.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

When you include the State NOT sponsoring religion as an erosion of "religious rights", how am I to include that you mean anything other than that you believe that religion has a RIGHT to Government sponsorship. Which is an establishment of religion.I remind you of the last line of your post 145 whioch I have already referred you back to once:
http://EvC Forum: What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA? -->EvC Forum: What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA? clearly referring to an end to Government sponsorship as an erosion of religous rights.
YOu want the Government to put your Holy book in it's own works, to teach it in schools to put it in monuments and presumably everywhere in everything touched by government. You even claim it as a right.

I googled Polikinthorne.What the hell is that brad?BTW, googling for it turns up this page. I don't think its a word.

I can answer that; it's a name, not a word, which should have been obvious from the context. As it happens I feel certain Brad merely mispelled 'Polkinghorne', as in 'Sir John Polkinghorne', a professor of mathematical physics and Anglican priest at Cambridge University.

WT, just wanted you to know that I do intend to keep my promise to participate here, and I'm following the exchange very closely, but as yet, I don't have anything to add. Just a heads-up.

Thanks berberry.as usual, brad perplexed me by going way (WAY) over my head! hehhe...One day I will understand!

Thanks Frog, I will still leave a full back in the backfield to pick up the blitz.

Despite having married into a family of rabid Packers fans, I still have no idea what you just said.

Would you please create a post that lists these questions/points that I have evaded ?Please do so, as I do not know what exactly you are referring to.

Paulk quote:
______________________________________________________________________
When you include the State NOT sponsoring religion as an erosion of "religious rights"
______________________________________________________________________This partial statement assumes I have used and employed the word "sponsor/ship/ing" in my arguments - I have not.You are interpreting my position to be "really advocating" State sponsorship of religion because I protest decisions that atheize government.I could reverse this argument (and I have) by saying the atheist religion/philosophy has been successfully adjudicated to remove harmless religious symbols under the disguise of genuine Constituition interpretation.The writers and framers of the Constitution did not intend the Contract to be used to erase the God of the Bible out of the State. The Constitution only filters God out when His enemies contort the terms to say so. I do not need a federal judge to come along and suddenly say that the Contract really says that the God of Genesis is to be erased from federally controlled entities.From the 1930's until now, atheists have successfully made the Contract say what they want it to say contrary to what it says and contrary to the context of why it was written and contrary to who wrote it (theists/deists).I am for school prayer for only one reason: Because haters of God say the Constitution says it is unconstitutional.A cross on federal/State property is not an endorsement of any religion - that is a subjective opinion intended to make the Contract say contrary to the intent of the authors. This is the philosophy of the minority being forced upon the majority.The success of the Constitution being used against God is the result of God removing God sense as a penalty for individual premeditated rejection.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 05-10-2004 05:20 PM

Of course it is. Don't be silly. That is EXACTLY what they meant to do. Thank GOD!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion