Printable View
Yep, there's supposed to be separation of church and state, but my Governor... Well my Governor is doing all kinds of dumb things; but now he's spewing this!
Kansas Governor Declares Saturday a Day of Collective Repentance to God
I feel like throwing up.
Talk about government waste, David. I feel for ya, bro. ;)
I believe in separation of church and state, but I wanted to vomit after reading some of the vile crap posted as comments in the link, but then I noticed the link is an atheist website and then it all made sense. We have not had a "good bashing of religion" thread in sometime here on SRP. This should get interesting.:popcorn: Just remember, God loves atheists, even if they don't love him.
Oh boy, glad it is not happening here - yet anyway. You know I like my religion or lack of it but am not determined to make others conform to it. Reminds me too much of Islamic states and how things are run there.
Bob
David, I write this with all my heart: WTF IS WRONG WITH KANSAS?!?!?! Get out whilst thou may!!!
Funny, I was talking to Mr L the other day and he was remarking with all the sin in the world these folks are like the U.S Govt trying to erase the deficit by having a bake sale. Besides, he says these fiscal woes are his doing. It's the easiest way for him to get new recruits he's ever come up with. When they say they are spending money like hell, well...
It's funny sometimes when you post, you forget that the people reading have no idea who you are, and those assumptions you hold dear don't necessarily travel through space all that well:
I am not opposed to people who have faith. I am jealous really.
Where a person finds their moral compass is their business.
I can't stand being preached to. Especially by the likes of an immoral SOB like Brownback.
For what it's worth, I didn't read the comments as the liberal left who are the minority in Kansas, who generally feel attacked by religion on a daily basis, are a rather rude bunch. I don't recommend you read them either.
I am simply disgusted he - the governor of Kansas - feels the right to promote on a personal level no less, a Christian ideal that is relatively narrow to a State that see's many a religion represented, and then uses the founding fathers to legitimize it.
In the United States no less!!
Well..I guess I'm opening myself up here. I don't see anything wrong with asking people to congregate at a specified time for religious fellowship, regardless of a persons station or history.
I didn't feel "preached to" when I watched the video.
No state resources were used in the making of the film..at least that's what it said.
Citing past Presidents belief in a higher power, didn't give me the impression that he was "using" them to legitimize his request.
Being invited to Church by someone on TV, is a lot less intrusive than the holy rollers that used to come banging on my barracks door every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday morning to tell me they'd love to have me come so I don't go to Hell. That's no exaggeration btw. I was informed on at least three separate occassions that I would burn in hell if I didn't go to church. Certainly a comforting thought for a soldier in heavy combat rotations.
Point is: If an invitation to religious fellowship is truly an issue for the majority, I feel bad for the majority. When people invite me to Church, I generally feel pretty good about it. I don't go. But I still think it's nice to be asked. Unless "hellfire" happens to be the reason I should go. In which case, I've been known to school a missionary or two...
I feel you Joe but the point is who is inviting in this case. And in this case it's a State Governor. A man who represents all.Quote:
Originally Posted by regularjoe
For those who see this as an appropriate role for a state Governor to be assuming (i.e. the promotion of a faith community gathering ostensibly for the purpose of curing society's ills) would you feel the same if he was of another faith?
If Governor Brownback called you to join him and the Imam of Topeka as he preaches Jihad against society's ills (remember Jihad is a very broadly-defined term that can represent struggle of all kinds, not just an armed struggle) would you still think it a good thing? Perhaps you would, inch'Allah.
If Governor Brownback called you to join him at the Topeka Temple in meditating on the wisdom of the Buddha, the impermanence and suffering of the material world, the absence of God, the Eight Fold Path, and how society can cure its ills by rejecting materialism and seeking enlightenment and the cessation of the cycle of rebirth, would you still think it a good thing? Perhaps you would.
If Governor Brownback called you to join him and his fellow Pastafarians in repentance to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for the purpose of curing society's ills, would you still think it a good thing?
Do you believe that his doing this is good because it engages peoples' spirituality, or because it is a Christian message? Or more specifically a message tailored to a very specific subset of those in the world who would call themselves Christian?
My opinion ultimately counts for nothing in this as I am not a resident of Kansas and therefore have no personal stake in this event. But like many others I am instinctively uncomfortable when elected officials who have been elected to serve all members of a particular constituency publicly espouse of favour a particular faith group.
David, that technique is known as an appeal to authority. Another example is cosmetics companies using famous actresses/models as spokespersons.Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
And yet again Brother Cangooner of the International Brotherhood of Spalted Cap Snafflers brings perspective to the issue with both poignancy and tact. ATTABOY KRIS!!!
Is Gov. Brownback (is that really his name?!?!) attempting to be the 2nd coming of the Great Saladin?
If he is, his opponents had best watch out - Salah al-Din was a serious badass! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus
What may have been more appropriate is that seeing Dec7th is "a National Day of Mourning" for all of the men and women lost in our many wars; that he
hold a gathering to commemorate those that severed they country and gave their lives.
That's the re-designed purpose of Veteran's Day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnus
Oh, I don't know about that. The Grim Reaper made mincemeat outta him, too. :chop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cangooner
I think the Founding Fathers neglected to include in the U.S. Constitution "separation of church and media." :rofl2:
Maybe the Gov should have phrased it something like "Collective repentance to the Higher Self Day" but that would have PO'd a whole lot of people too...
What I find most disconcerting is that this rally merely serves as a distraction, while the real underlying issues perpetuate themselves, the same way they always have. Claiming natural disasters and our failing economy as the result of some etherial force punishing us for our collective sins, in my opinion, is misplaced time and effort.
I would much rather have Gov Brownback call a conferfence of all US governers on Dec 8th, to discuss the palpable issues that we face as a nation-- and maybe even pose some solutions based on fact and research.
To me, whether or not God exists, or if she gives to farts about our government; is sedcondary to the fact that there is action to be taken now, by us, and that we're the one's really responsible for the failings of our own government.
This is about the separation of Church and State - not your church, all churches. It always saddens me when the church involved see's it as an attack on them. It's not about Christians! You guys are doing just fine in America! You get to moan about mosques being built, in the 50's you got in god we trust put on currency, and have the ear of the conservative right and get to invade woman's rights in the name of your god. Stop moaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by regularjoe
Too harsh? Please! Get a grip - this is not about Christians - you have to see that!
If you can't see why a government official in the United States of America shouldn't be doing what he is - then you'll never know, or want to know. Seriously man - he represents all of Kansas!
It was the early protestants in America who pushed the hardest for the separation of church and state. They had seen first hand what happens when the state endorses a particular religious belief. Every person of another belief is automatically a second class citizens and not as backed or represented or treated equally by the state.
They knew that in order to have complete freedom OF religion, everyone first had to have freedom FROM religion. Think about that and you'll see the truth of it.
When government officials do things like that, the message they are sending is that the state shares the beliefs of a particular segment of the population, not all citizens. This automatically marginalizes every citizen who doesn't share that belief.
If you think that's not the case, imagine that he was a Muslim governor of a state that you as a Christian lived in for a moment. Now imagine your feelings if the governor announced a date of worship for Muhammad and prayers to Allah.
In that situation, could you at that point ever feel that the government represented your interests equally as those of a Muslim in your state?
If you as a Christian went to the court system in your state and saw predominantly displayed in the court house a giant monument of the 5 pillars of Islam, would you feel that you're going to receive treatment equal to a Muslim in the court system?
No. It's impossible to, because the state is automatically more on the side of some citizens than it is on others.
Freedom of religion isn't there to protect the position of the majority, it's there to protect the positions of the minority religions, because the position of majority doesn't always stay that way. For one group to be protected, all have to be. For that to happen, the power of the state CAN NOT be more behind any one belief.
Absolute separation of state is the only way to fully achieve that. It's that way to protect me and you as well, from each other and the state equally.
I say lets look at what separation of church and state means. The term simply means that the government cannot support or be supported by a specific religious group. If we rewind our brains to basic grade school history, many immigrants to the new world wished to escape the Catholic Empire of Europe. The Catholic Church had its hands elbow deep in the governments of many countries and controlled what religion could be practiced. Our constitution never once said that government could not be affiliated with a religious group or religious ideals. The ideal of separation exists solely to prevent another religious empire from forming. Liberal extremists took that ball and ran with it. And where did that get us? Kids get expelled for having a christian Bible or praying over their lunches but leaving the class to pray 5 times a day and carrying the Koran is just fine. Its all a big sham. I would much rather have a political figure in office that promotes a solid christian lifestyle than one that doesnt. After all, most of our forefathers did.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...[/
Umm yeah that is in the Constitution, there is no Seperation of Church and State in there..
True Atheists should have no problem with Religion, right up until the are made to practice any Religion by proclimation of law,,
Quote:
Originally Posted by debay
That's just not the case. Any kid can and does carry their own religious book or pray as much as they like. They can pray in school where and whenever they like.
What can not happen is that a teacher or the school itself cannot call for a prayer or proselytize or push or endorse any religion.
For exactly the reasons I detailed in my post above.
Uhhhh, that pretty much says what I said. The government cannot support or be supported by a "church". Im personally OK with that. It doesnt mean however, that kids cant carry a bible in school. Or that the 10 commandments cant be hung in court rooms. Or that kids cant pray as part of a graduation ceremony. It has gone too far.
Kids can and frequently do carry bibles in school. Kids can and do pray in graduation ceremonies.Quote:
Originally Posted by debay
The school itself can't call for prayers in ceremonies. The kids can do it as much as they like.
The ten commandments can not be hung in court rooms.
So, by todays standards this is wrong?
http://m.voices.yahoo.com/whats-prea...n-3255417.html
No. It's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by debay
The preamble isn't the states official document, it's more a personal note by the author and has no power of law.
Neither did that Governors comments or actions....
I don't know why this is hard for you to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by debay
A governor's comments from the podium in a public speech like that is the embodiment of the state's position and the weight of the full power of the state and its law.
The governor could write op-eds all day outlining his religious beliefs, no problem.
But when he puts on the mantle of state power and steps on the podium to speak, then yes, it's a problem because it's wrong.
As if the gov't. never lies to its citizens :roflmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by debay
In essence, it becomes an official endorsement.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddafinga
That's a good point Glen, and on its face kind of valid, but the Supreme Court has interpreted that saying as there indeed is separation of church and state. More importantly - those decisions have held as interpreted in court. So by all "definition" - there is separation.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
It's everywhere in the Constitution - Kind of like the constitution states everyone has the right to bear arms - but convicted felons can't get them... or Canadian students :). lol Or voting? Felons can't vote either.
Just saying.
This is awful. It happens here a lot in Puerto Rico, more so with the Republican types. Thank God I'm an atheist.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
LOL - ok so I read the comments on the link. I got a kick out of the person who posted - "it's kind of like this" :).
Classic Movie Line #5 - YouTube
First, please don't put all your faith in grade-school History. "Basic grade school history" as you call it is, necessarily, incredibly simplified. It often perpetuates myths and inaccuracies. For example, do you really think of Columbus as a great man? Ask all the Carib women he raped before writing letters home bragging of the fact. As for his navigational skills, the only reason he stumbled onto what he thought was India was that his math was terrible and he vastly underestimated the diameter of the earth (which, incidentally, every contemporary educated person in Europe recognized was round). Also the thing about him 'discovering' America is bunk. Not only had it been 'discovered' tens of thousands of years earlier and since inhabited by a wide variety of diverse cultures, he was also beaten by about 500 years by the Norse. The "I cannot tell a lie" thing? Also bunk, invented by a later author. Europeans saved and civilized Native Americans (i.e. all aboriginal peoples of the Americas)? Trust me - you *really* don't want to get me started on that one. The point is, as uncomfortable as the notion may be, what any of us learned in grade-school history is most definitely not indisputable fact. This applies to all countries - I have just chosen a few examples from the USA as that's where most folks reading this thread will likely be from.Quote:
Originally Posted by debay
Second, let's not blame this all on the Roman Catholic church. For all their sins throughout history - and they are many, I think you'll find that many of those who emigrated to North America did so to escape persecution in protestant countries. For example the the settlers of the Plymouth Colony originating from England which was at the time a decidedly non-Catholic realm. No religion has a monopoly on intolerance and hatred. How many of the millions of Spanish and Portuguese fled Europe to escape Catholicism? With the principal exception of the Huguenots, how many fled France because of the Catholic Church? Why were the Americas not dotted with non-Roman Catholic Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies? Anyway, Catholic countries were dominated by the Catholic church - that is true. But it is also true that Protestant European countries were similarly dominated by their own particular dominant denomination.
Third - what is the evidence for kids being expelled for having a bible or praying? I'm actually genuinely curious about that one as I have always suspected that was either an urban legend or *very* isolated cases that were latched on to by the Christian Right as examples of the so-called 'war on Christianity'. If there are documented cases of this happening, I'd be very interested to read about them. Particularly if they occurred in the same school where other kids are carrying Qur'ans and praying five time a day. And if you want freedom for your kids to express their religion in school, should not that same courtesy be extended to children of other faiths?
At this point in time I'd simply welcome the separation of Church from small boys. After that we can worry about politics.
James.
I'd like to add that a nation of vast majority Christian population really can't have a war on Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cangooner
My suspicion is that the people complaining of that are actually whining about the loss of their position of special status and privilege, which they are steadily losing.
Sooooo, If Im Gov of NC and I give my opinion that mint ice cream is nasty and that I prefer orange sherbet, thats technically wrong because now the whole state is somehow "forced" to stand behind my opinion? What if I say as Gov that on the following Sunday I want everyone who agrees with me to have Orange Sherbet ice cream after their sunday meal? oh, heaven forbid I mention Im having mine after a Sunday lunch at CHURCH. Heaven forbid. The only thing that makes this more complicated than ice cream is that religion is such a hot topic. Its actually quite simple if you let it be. This conversation is never going to move forward. You have your opinion, I have mine. I personally believe that christian values in a political figure are nice to have. They are human and subject to corruption like anyone else- they are politicians afterall- but I prefer it. A look at the founding fathers shows that many of them had strong protestant backgrounds and beliefs that they did not hide in their writings or public speakings. Could our government not use a stricter set of morals and guidelines right now? I think we need a whole lot more Jesus than we do insane taxes, corporate backscratching and back room deals. Im cutting off any responses because like I said, its a dead end debate. May God bless you and may your eyes see The Truth before its too late.
The problem is this doesn't quite jive with the history. The early protestants in America were just as intolerant to different religions and variations of their specific religion, as the places they escaped, sometimes even more so.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddafinga
By the time the constitution of the USA was drawn things had mellowed out a fair amount, and whoremongers and drunkards like Benjamin Franklin got to hold government positions as high as postmaster general ;)