Text 8613, 112 rader
Skriven 2005-02-04 14:16:00 av Darryl Perry (1:106/324)
     Kommentar till en text av John Hull
Ärende: Re: Unborn
==================
On 02-03-05, John Hull said...
 
JH> 03 Feb 05 12:54, Darryl Perry wrote to John Hull:

JH>  JH>> reported on as well.  Every time we turn around, some ACLU liberal 
JH>  JH>> is fili suit to get prayer squelched somewhere, or prevent a 
JH>  JH>> Nativity scene from b put up at Xmas, or get the 10 Commandments 
JH>  JH>> removed from the wall of a cour house.  It isn't so much that 
JH>  JH>> they've reported on Christian bashing as the have appearing to 
JH>  JH>> support it.
JH> 
JH>  DP> You patently forgot to mention that all those areas were public 
JH>  DP> areas, not private areas.  Forced prayer in school is ok if it is a 
JH>  DP> private school.
JH> 
JH> There is not and never has been "forced prayer" in public schools.  Nor do
JH> the Constitution, IN ANY WAY, prohibit prayer in schools.  Not even one io
JH> worth.

We seem to be doing a lot of assertions of what the Constitution will NOT do
for the other side.  I think we've quite established those points.

JH>  DP> I've got stories that a friend of mine was telling me.  She got 
JH>  DP> relocated here to the bible-belt of Houston like I did, and now her c
JH> 
JH>  DP> is being castigated for not participating in the required prayer time
JH>  DP> his school.
JH> 
JH> If there is a required prayer time, then it isn't a public school.  Its a 
JH> private church affiliated school, possibly Catholic or Lutheran.  In any c
JH> that is hearsay and not admissable as proof of anything.

JH>  DP> The militant right strikes again!  Courthouses are places of 
JH>  DP> Justice, and justice is supposed to be blind.  Our country was founde
JH>  DP> with the bill of rights which is a proclimation of how justice can be
JH> be 
JH>  DP> served for our people.  The 10 commandments are not of the 10 
JH> ammendments.  
JH>  DP> If anything should be place at the courthouse, it's the Bill of Right
JH> 
JH> You obviously don't know anything of the history of English common law and
JH> Magna Carta, which forms the basis of American law in the colonies, and 
JH> subsequently US law as codified in the Constitution.  There has NEVER BEEN
JH> PROHIBITION of religion, prayer, the 10 Commandments, or anything else in 
JH> vein.  I invite you to prove otherwise if you think you are able.

I'm not going to take up that gauntlet, as it is not germain to my point. 
That seems to be your tangent, so I'll leave you to continue ranting about
it.  However, see my statement above, and to paraphrase myself ;) ;while the
Constitution does not have any prohibition to religion, it does not offer
any guarantees to it either, other than the right to practice whichever
religion a person chooses.  Up to and including no religion at all. 

JH>  JH>> This country was founded by Christians of various denominations 
JH>  JH>> who left England because they didn't want to be forced to pray in 
JH>  JH>> the state sponsor Church of England.  That's why the 1st Amendment 
JH>  JH>> carries a prohibition aga
JH> 
JH>  DP> Your words: "Not wanteing to be forced in to prayer" still holds 
JH>  DP> true. Freedom FROM religion is as fundimental as freedom OF religion.
JH>  DP> Nowhere in that 1st Amendment does it say that a citizen MUST adhear 
JH>  DP> ANY religion.
JH> 
JH> You left out the rest of the sentence.  I said "didn't want to be forced t
JH> pray in the state sponsored Church of England."

If you want to make it a point that it only pertains to state sponsord
churches, or the Church of England, I'll let you.  But since there are no
'state' sponsered churches, then the point is moot.  The fear of the other
camp is that there is a drive to actually create a state sponsered church.

JH>  JH>> state-sponsored religion.  It says NOTHING, however, about 
JH>  JH>> requiring a separation of church and state.  That phrase was 
JH>  JH>> lifted from a private let that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist 
JH>  JH>> minister, and even then it is lif out of context.
JH> 
JH>  DP> Regardless, there is NOTHING in the Constitution and the Bill of 
JH>  DP> rights that guarantees that one religious factor can elevate their ag
JH> 
JH>  DP> over another.
JH> 
JH> Regardless nothing.  You liberals love to quote that separation of church
JH> state garbage, but it had no legal substance then, and it doesn't now, 
JH> regardless of what the USSC says.  And, I don't see any denomination tryin
JH> elevate itself over the rest, unless you are referring to Islam.

You are going on a tangent again.  It was you who made the comments about
liberals trying to remove or bar statues of the 10 commandments in front of
courthouses.  It was you who made the comments about liberals halting
prayers at school.  My comments were that conservatives who claim to follow
Jesus's teachings weren't always doing so.  My question to you about prayers
in schools and statues in front of courthouses.... How does advocating those
things show that you are following Jesus's teachings?  How is objecting to
them NOT following his teachings?

JH>  DP> Christian tho the FF's may have been, the Country they founded was 
JH>  DP> no a
JH>  DP> country based on religion.
JH> 
JH> You had better go back and read what the Founders had to say, then, becaus
JH> that is pure poppycock

I've read the constitution, and the bill of rights.  I'm still looking for
any evidence about anything to do about religion, other than the 1st
ammendment.

Gryphon, aka Darryl Perry
Sysop of Cyberia BBS, Kingwood, TX.
telnet://cyberia.darktech.org

--- Mystic BBS v1.07.3 (Linux)
 * Origin: Oh Jesus, deliver me from your people! (1:106/324)