Thread: President's Speech

This issue with a cross on public land is that it implies that everyone that died serving is of the religion that cross represents .... and it being on public land, it should abide by the establishment clause, specifically because its taxed/publicly funded. I don't see how that is ridiculous.

Edit because i missed it...."Saying it is illegal to say "in God we trust" on money and in the Pledge is ridiculous."

Is the statement "in god we trust" not a direct indication to indicating what specific deity the "country" believes in? What if it were chaged to "in allah we trust" tomorrow ?? would you still feel the same ? im asking honestly out of curiosity

Originally Posted by WishinItWas

This issue with a cross on public land is that it implies that everyone that died serving is of the religion that cross represents .... and it being on public land, it should abide by the establishment clause, specifically because its taxed/publicly funded. I don't see how that is ridiculous.

Edit because i missed it...."Saying it is illegal to say "in God we trust" on money and in the Pledge is ridiculous."

Is the statement "in god we trust" not a direct indication to indicating what specific deity the "country" believes in? What if it were chaged to "in allah we trust" tomorrow ?? would you still feel the same ? im asking honestly out of curiosity

The monument I was talking about was erected decades ago. It is under attack by atheists in another state using law in a way that was never intended. Their argument isn't that it is about a specific religion, but that it is any religion at all. The Constitution says nothing about freedom FROM religion.

Yes, I would have a problem with Allah, but not because I have anything against the Muslim religion. I have a problem with any Muslim insertion into our government government because thay want to institute Shariah Law in the US. They are already getting this done in some locations. IMO Shariah Law goes against everything US Law stands for now. Everything about it is cruel and unusual. It is UnConstitutional and absurd for our courts to even consider ANY foreign law when deciding cases.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The monument I was talking about was erected decades ago. It is under attack by atheists in another state using law in a way that was never intended. Their argument isn't that it is about a specific religion, but that it is any religion at all. The Constitution says nothing about freedom FROM religion.

Yes, I would have a problem with Allah, but not because I have anything against the Muslim religion. I have a problem with any Muslim insertion into our government government because that want to institute Shariah Law in the US. They are already getting this done in some locations. IMO Shariah Law goes against everything US Law stands for now. Everything about it is cruel and unusual. It is UnConstitutional and absurd for our courts to even consider ANY foreign law when deciding cases.

I know that specific incident you are referring to, with the monument, and I agree with you in that regard. I believe it was even put there for specific people, who are named on the monument, that is a fight that should be left alone. My original point still stands in the case of a "generic cross" or religious symbol being erected on public property.

As to the comment (repeated) about the freedom from religion I think myself, and a few others have already made strong points proving that it exists with out the direct verbiage , please read the previous posts.

I will rewrite your last part and see if anything clicks....

Yes, I would have a problem with god, but not because I have anything against the christian religion. I have a problem with anychristian insertion into our government because that want to institute biblical morality Laws in the US. They are already getting this done with tax freedoms, changing the countries motto, infultrating the court system, fighting equal rights(gay/interracial marriage) etc. IMO biblical Law goes against everything US Law stands for now. Everything about it is cruel and unusual. It is UnConstitutional and absurd for our courts to even consider ANY foreign law(2000 yr old books are ok though?) when deciding cases.

oh and quickly adding ....no one is "infiltrating" our country with shariah law......i mean ...seriously

Originally Posted by WishinItWas

oh and quickly adding ....no one is "infiltrating" our country with shariah law......i mean ...seriously

I wish this was true, I really do. There was a court case in Florida just a few months ago where the judge agreed to apply Shariah law in mediating a case.

Oklahoma and Kansas have seen enough of a threat to pass laws banning Shariah. If you Google "Shariah Law in the US" you will find a lot of court cases dealing with it. You will also find a lot of people "poo pooing" the idea.

No sane person in the US is pushing to get shariah penal laws ( the ones dealing with violence and excessive punishment, degrading women etc) the people that was shariah consideration are talking about shariah dealing with praying, fasting, alms-giving, divorce, burials,inheritance etc........ who is demanding, or better yet , what judge is ruling in favor of shariah law with regard to hurting people???

Much like jews and christians ( the big two in the US) have specific rights within the court system (holidays, sabbath, refusing to vaccinate their children) the muslim community is fighting for these similar rights as outlined above. how is this different that the freedoms other religions enjoy in this country?

The bible is full of terrible things and yet no one is arguing that they should be able to stone their children to death for talking back to them .... but the sad irony of your fear of "foreign law" being harmful and against the constitution is that your ok with the bible being used to justify the fight against gay marriage and the use of contraceptives ....

Originally Posted by WishinItWas

The bible is full of terrible things and yet no one is arguing that they should be able to stone their children to death for talking back to them .... but the sad irony of your fear of "foreign law" being harmful and against the constitution is that your ok with the bible being used to justify the fight against gay marriage and the use of contraceptives ....

MY objections against gay marriage have nothing to do with religion. It has to do with gay couples then demanding to be able to raise children. I think it is wrong to expose children to a gay household because gay couples turn out gay children at a statistically much higher percentage than non-gay couples. 3% verses 15%. I have been through this argument MANY times with liberals. I still think the 3% is an exaggerated number.

My views on contraception have nothing to do with religion. Giving contraceptives to children encourages them to have sex WAY before they are able to handle the consequences, both physical and mental. I do think it is wrong to force religious organizations to supply contraceptives against their beliefs as Obamacare is attempting to do.

wow. just wow.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

MY objections against gay marriage have nothing to do with religion. It has to do with gay couples then demanding to be able to raise children. I think it is wrong to expose children to a gay household because gay couples turn out gay children at a statistically much higher percentage than non-gay couples. 3% verses 15%. I have been through this argument MANY times with liberals. I still think the 3% is an exaggerated number.

My views on contraception have nothing to do with religion. Giving contraceptives to children encourages them to have sex WAY before they are able to handle the consequences, both physical and mental. I do think it is wrong to force religious organizations to supply contraceptives against their beliefs as Obamacare is attempting to do.

Wow....I dont even know what to say to this, So I will say nothing. But I would love to read your studies backing your statement.

I have been providing, what i consider, great rebuttals( not necessarily "correct" but something for you to counter point) to your large number of uninformed assertions up to this point. You continue to ignore my response or just add another, unrelated opinion into the mix without addressing what was currently on the table.
After that last response I can see how truly misinformed you are and that things like facts and data mean nothing to you. People aren't "turned gay", not all gay people want children, why do you care if they are gay .......and now have to tell you how abstinence is the WORST method every considered
-states with abstinence programs in school and anti-contraceptive learning programs consistently have the highest teen birth rates
Teen moms: Which state has the highest birth rate? - Health - Women's health - msnbc.com

Red State Fail: Abstinence Only Education Leads To Highest Rates Of Teen Pregnancy In The Country | Addicting Info

-by fighting to eliminate safe sex programs or contraceptive education the risk of STD's shoots through the roof

Effective Sex Education


The information is out there, because you choose to invent your own and ignore the facts doesn't make you correct.