Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
369 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (9 members, 360 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,401 Year: 1,149/23,288 Month: 1,149/1,851 Week: 273/320 Day: 45/87 Hour: 0/17


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 114 of 331 (566550)
06-25-2010 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by JRTjr
06-25-2010 2:27 AM


"Free Exercise"
quote:
This is clear, plain and simple; the Government of the United States of America, according to the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’, can not restrict, or outlaw an “establishment of religion” or “prohibit” it’s free exercise.
I think some issues go to extreme, but I don't think it is unreasonable to keep religious icons off public property. It isn't an exercise of religion to put icons on public property. The Bible doesn't say thou shalt put up graven images for public viewing.

This article is good.

Establishing Free Exercise
To reformulate free exercise, the Court could do worse than turn to the writings of James Madison. Not only did Madison introduce the Bill of Rights into Congress, he has long been cited as the authoritative guide for the meaning of the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty. Madison offers a clear and simple statement, moreover, summarizing what “free exercise” means. When editing the religious freedom amendment to Virginia’s state Bill of Rights, Madison proposed the following:

That religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it accord[in]g to the dictates of conscience; and therefore that no man or class of men ought, on account of religion to be invested with peculiar emoluments or privileges, nor subjected to any penalties or disabilities.

What does the exercise of the Christian religion actually entail?


Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motion—for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in “The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by JRTjr, posted 06-25-2010 2:27 AM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by JRTjr, posted 07-01-2010 11:51 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 129 of 331 (567673)
07-02-2010 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by JRTjr
07-01-2010 11:51 PM


Exercise of Religion
quote:
I assume here that you’re asking this as it relates to the founding of the United States of America, and the founding documents that are at the center of this discussion.

In that respect; the exercising of the Christian faith requires the truth be told (Exodus 19: 5, 23: 1-2) of the events of our past.


Actually, I wanted to know what the exercise of the Christian religion actually entails?

Exercising your religion means the performance of your religion.

You say that it requires the truth to be told about the history of Christian Religion. The verses you provided do not support that; but telling the truth falls under freedom of speech. I wouldn't call it performing the Christian religion.

quote:
I’ll close with this question: How does a Bible, sitting in a display case, in front of a court house “prohibit the free exercise” of an atheist’s religion?; Or a Muslim?; Or Buddhist?
A Bible sitting in a display case is not an exercise of the Christian Religion. So removing the Bible does not prevent a Christian from performing their religion.

A court house should be neutral zone. The individuals inside the building are not hindered from worshiping or not worshiping as they please or speaking of their religion or lack of religion.

So what does the exercise of the Christian religion actually entail?

quote:
Since the United States of America was founded by Christians so that Christians could follow the dictates of their faith (religion) without fear of reprisal from non-Christians (both in government and in the privet sector) our monuments and historical documents are fraught with references to our faith and our God. To tear down these references; and hide there significance is to partake in a lie.
Not really. In the colonial times the church fathers and the government were the threat, not non-Christians. Colonist were here over 150 years before the constitution was ratified.

Liberating the founders
Mr. Waldman: Most people tend to think of, well the founding fathers were aware of persecution in Europe and they wanted to avoid official religions in Europe. And that's partially true, but almost all of the colonies had official or semiofficial religions. And in fact, you could look at the first 150 years of colonial history as one experiment after another of people trying to have state-supported religion. In New England, it was the congregational churches, the Puritans, and in the Southern states, it was the Church of England. In Pennsylvania, it was Quakers. And the one thing that all of these experiments had in common is they all failed. There's really a lot that is quite painful. For instance, the treatment of Quakers in early American history was not just a case of harassment or persecution, it was illegal to be a Quaker. And Quakers were thrown in jail and in fact executed. There's, you know, a case of a woman named Mary Dyer, who I feel like every school child ought to know the story of Mary Dyer.

The "Bill of Rights" was a campaign promise.

Mr. Waldman: And he had to go and court them. And the thing that they were most fearful of was that the Constitution, this was before the Bill of Rights, did not adequately guarantee religious freedom. And at that point, Madison actually didn't really agree. He thought it was OK the way it was. He was not an early supporter of the Bill of Rights, ironically. But they said, 'Unh-unh, come on. We know you've been with us in the past but this is really important to have religious freedom.' And Madison made what was probably the most important "read my lips" campaign pledge in American history. He said to the Evangelical leaders in his district that, 'if you elect me, the first thing I will do is put forward a Bill of Rights and it will have religious freedom as one of its core components.' And they agreed and they got him elected and he kept his promise.

Religious freedom wasn't a priority of the government.

Campaign for a Bill of Rights
When the Federal Convention met in 1787, only a handful of delegates expressed any interest in including a comprehensive list of rights in the new constitution of national government they were drafting. On 12 September 1787, five days before the convention was to adjourn, two of the three delegates still present raised the issue of including a bill of rights in the Constitution; these delegates indicated that they would refuse to sign the completed Constitution without such inclusion. George Mason, one of the two, apparently thought that the convention could simply imitate the influential Virginia Declaration of Rights that he had drafted in 1776. The convention dismissed the idea after perfunctory debate.

The United States continues to evolve. We are a country free to worship the god of our choice or free not to worship any god. Keeping public grounds free of religious paraphernalia maintains the balance and doesn't impact anyone's exercise of their religion.

Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.


Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motion—for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in “The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by JRTjr, posted 07-01-2010 11:51 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by JRTjr, posted 08-10-2010 10:28 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 166 of 331 (573369)
08-11-2010 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by JRTjr
08-10-2010 10:28 PM


Re: Exercise of Religion
quote:
True Christianity is not as much a ‘religiona’ in the “belief system” sense; as it is a relationship with the Creator of the Universes.

OR, let me put it this way: I do not consider myself a ‘Christian’ because of ‘religiously held beliefs’ as much as because of Whom I believe in, Trust in, cling to, and rely onB; namely Yahushua Mashiach (Jesus the Christ).


You're avoiding the question. I didn't ask how to identify a Christian, I asked what constitutes the exercise of the Christian religion. We are discussing what the Constitution says.

In Message 110 you stated:

JRTjr writes:

For those whom are still unclear, the Supreme Court, itself, is in violation of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ when it requires that Christian symbols, and historical landmarks be taken down from public domains because they are ‘religious in nature’.

You quoted the First Amendment:

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.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In Message 110 you are saying that Christian symbols and historical landmarks on public domains is an exercise of religion. I disagree. Even your response doesn't agree.

JRTjr writes:

Yahushua sums up the duties of a ‘Christian’ this way: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (intellect). This is the great (most important, principal) and first commandment.
And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself.

These two commandments [a]sum up and upon them depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

If those are the duties required to exercise the Christian religion, then symbols and historic landmarks are not an exercise of the Christian religion.

As I said in Message 129: A Bible sitting in a display case is not an exercise of the Christian Religion. So removing the Bible does not prevent a Christian from performing their religion.

A court house should be neutral zone. The individuals inside the building are not hindered from worshiping or not worshiping as they please or speaking of their religion or lack of religion.


Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motion—for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in “The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by JRTjr, posted 08-10-2010 10:28 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by JRTjr, posted 10-26-2010 12:42 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020