"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
And where does it say they had a vision to
separate religion and state? They only stated there would not be a
state
religion! Ala Church of England. They mentioned God in the
Declaration of
Independence. They opened Congress with prayers, etc.

*************

They mention God, not "church" in the Declaration.
There is an opening prayer each day when Congress convenes. The prayers
are offered by a variety of Christian clerics, as well as Jewish,
Muslim, Native American, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.
I'm not sure the Wiccans have been given an opportunity yet......


One of the funniest trends of modern times has been the outcry from the
Fundie Right to reexamine our long tradition of separating church and
state.
The arguments about the use of "God" in the declaration, etc, are
factually correct, but one has to wonder what inspires the Fundies to
believe that if God were present in government it would have to be
through the vehicle of a specific branch of a specific (conservative
Christian) faith?

I listened to a guy on right wing radio wailing on and on about how
churches should be allowed to financially support and/or actively
campaign for certain individuals or issues. Somebody asked, "What about
the members of a church who might prefer the other candidate?" The
answer was rather revealing, "If they aren't willing to go along with
the official political position of their church, they should go and
worship somewhere else."
Gotcha. I think that's why the founders realized that both religion and
government would be better off if they weren't officially in bed
together.


But the people attacking religion and the state, attack any mention of God
by the government. They have confused God and religion according to your
argument.

Hell, he's confused over the meaning of "long tradition"

But the people attacking religion and the state, attack any mention of
God
by the government. They have confused God and religion according to
your
argument.

************

It would be nice if the world were so simple that everybody who felt
that religion and government should be separate also "attacked any
mention of God" by the government.

A lot of people who feel that religion is more important than politics
(how dare they?) also feel the same way. When govt and religion mix, it
is more likely to be religion that comes out the loser. Once the
government begins to assume spiritual as well as civil authroity it is
all too easy to begin telling people when, where, how, and whom to
worship.

When a church wants to fund and campaign for candidates for office, it
should lose its tax-exempt status.

Somebody far too timid to use their real name posted the following
garbage:

Just **** off asshole! Your protests count as nothing. If I want to go
to
church on a boating weekend, I will, if not, I won't. You just want to

carry everything to the extreme.


The feds don't have a damn thing to do with it despite your protests.
You're trying to build a case out of thin air asshole.


******************

1) You comments are not responsive to a single statement I made in this
thread.

2) It's easy to talk tough and run your potty mouth when
you are hiding behind the Mama skirts of usenet anonymity, isn't it?
What a man. :-(

wrote in message
ups.com...
But the people attacking religion and the state, attack any mention of
God
by the government. They have confused God and religion according to
your
argument.

************

It would be nice if the world were so simple that everybody who felt
that religion and government should be separate also "attacked any
mention of God" by the government.

A lot of people who feel that religion is more important than politics
(how dare they?) also feel the same way. When govt and religion mix, it
is more likely to be religion that comes out the loser. Once the
government begins to assume spiritual as well as civil authroity it is
all too easy to begin telling people when, where, how, and whom to
worship.

When a church wants to fund and campaign for candidates for office, it
should lose its tax-exempt status.
\

Agreed on the tax-exempt status, Same as Rainbow coalition, etc. I do not
want the state saying what religion we practice if any, but a lot of people
are over the line, when they want any reference to God or religion purged
from public places. The religious are also citizens and have a right to use
the public places also. The government does not need to spend money on xmas
displays or Hanukah or Ramadan, there are private individuals that will put
up the decorations. But an extreme minority is pushing for absolutely no
religious items on public land. They are causing tyranny of the masses by
the minority.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
First put the OT in the header! And where does it say they had a vision
to separate religion and state?

In the Constitution.




Bill McKee wrote:
Where in the constitution does it state there will be no religion
practiced in America?

Do you comprehend the difference between "practicing religion" and the
state imposing a religion? Or having the state favor one religion over
another?

... Where does it say government will not refer to God in any way?

???
Where did I say that the gov't can not (or even should not) refer to God
"in any way?"

DSK


There is a very vocal minority(?) that is pushing for absolutely no mention
of religion or icons of religion in public areas. The religious are
citizens also, and are being tyrannized by a minority.

Bill McKee wrote:
There is a very vocal minority(?) that is pushing for absolutely no mention
of religion or icons of religion in public areas.

There is no prohibition on display of religion or icons (for the Russian
Orthodox among us, I guess) in public places.

It *is* prohibited from spending public money on religious displays. Big
difference.


There is also a very vocal minority pushing for religious war. They talk
of crusades, of using America's military to "stamp out Satan," and the
frequent mention of God by the Founding Fathers. They are an American
Taliban.

... The religious are
citizens also, and are being tyrannized by a minority.


How so? By being prohibited from practicing their religion?

No.

You seem to be confused. "Freedom of religion" does not mean freedom to
impose your religious beliefs on others.

DSK

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 03:57:32 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

There is a very vocal minority(?) that is pushing for absolutely no mention
of religion or icons of religion in public areas. The religious are
citizens also, and are being tyrannized by a minority.

==========================================

OK, so we decide that religious icons, etc. are OK in public
(governmental) areas. Which religions will be given official
sanction? That's where the constitutional issue comes into play. The
religious have this unfortunate habit of assuming that THEIR religion
is the only one worth recognizing.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Bill McKee wrote:
There is a very vocal minority(?) that is pushing for absolutely no
mention of religion or icons of religion in public areas.

There is no prohibition on display of religion or icons (for the Russian
Orthodox among us, I guess) in public places.

It *is* prohibited from spending public money on religious displays. Big
difference.



You better do a little more research as to religious displays. And icons
can be non Russian Orthodox also.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 03:57:32 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

There is a very vocal minority(?) that is pushing for absolutely no
mention
of religion or icons of religion in public areas. The religious are
citizens also, and are being tyrannized by a minority.

==========================================

OK, so we decide that religious icons, etc. are OK in public
(governmental) areas. Which religions will be given official
sanction? That's where the constitutional issue comes into play. The
religious have this unfortunate habit of assuming that THEIR religion
is the only one worth recognizing.


Let any religion figure they are the chosen one. Government lets all
display as long as they do it with no government cost other than police
protection from those others that think htey are the chosen.