NFL: Listen to Tim Tebow’s comeback against the Bears

[ggp]

Government and Religion must be separate. There is no other way to live free.

[mcsupersport]

(12-18-2011 04:15 PM)Radical Wrote:  Let me quote the exact phrase for you, straight from the Constitution itself.

Yes, let's quote the ENTIRE sentence shall we...
" 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 not make a law about religion, not that it shall be totally free of religion throughout government.
Free exercise thereof, means you shall not stop people from practicing their religion.
Free Speech, means you can't stop them from talking.
Free Press, means you can't prevent the press from writing things.
Free to peaceably assemble, etc etc

Now where does allowing religion to be around government mean the government is passing laws on an religion, ie they aren't saying you have to be Christian, they are simply allowing Christians to have faith while in government. Stopping them from assembling on PUBLIC(lands owned by the tax payers, who just might be Christians) lands, preventing any discussion of prayer in schools or schools functions is abridging the Freedom to exercise clause and nowhere does any of this REQUIRE people to practice.

You have gone past stopping the requirement to stopping the practice of in your arguments. Just because a law has religious flavor, still doesn't change it is a law BECAUSE the people want it, and as long as said law doesn't require religion or harm someone it should be allowed. IF the law is compelling an action or harming someone due to religious beliefs, sure stop it, but if a majority people don't want to deal with people drinking on a certain day, that is their right as long as they aren't telling people they have to do a religious act on that same day.

By trying to take all religion out of government you are in fact catering to a "belief" system as I posted earlier. Belief systems are religions and Atheist is the belief you are pushing on us by REQUIRING no "religion" touch ANY government.
By making funds available to charities, and preventing religious charities from participating you are discriminating based on religion rather than protecting from government bias. You are actually putting one belief system above another simply because of name.

[Jesus]

(12-18-2011 05:23 PM)Peyton Wrote:  Tebow showed up to play today. That was a hellastudly TD run he just had.

Is this a Football thread? I forget.

[mcsupersport]

And if you read Jefferson's letter about that time describing more of his thoughts....

"Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802."


This line is perhaps most illuminating..

"I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect."

Meaning pretty plain to me, that Government shall not regulate or bother religion and allow it to be the sole point voluntary among the respective sect. They didn't want Government interfering with religion, or having religious figures as THE Government. But they don't say the people can't have their religion while in government or on public lands. Please remember, Presidents since the first have been sworn in on a Bible, and that I think makes the best point of all.

[Peyton]

(12-18-2011 05:37 PM)Jesus Wrote:  Is this a Football thread? I forget.

I think it used to be, back in the day.

[Peyton]

I got bad news for people who are sick of hearing about Tim Tebow. I think it's about to get a good bit worse for ya.

[Radical]

(12-18-2011 05:31 PM)mcsupersport Wrote:  Yes, let's quote the ENTIRE sentence shall we...
" 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 not make a law about religion, not that it shall be totally free of religion throughout government.
Free exercise thereof, means you shall not stop people from practicing their religion.
Free Speech, means you can't stop them from talking.
Free Press, means you can't prevent the press from writing things.
Free to peaceably assemble, etc etc

Now where does allowing religion to be around government mean the government is passing laws on an religion, ie they aren't saying you have to be Christian, they are simply allowing Christians to have faith while in government. Stopping them from assembling on PUBLIC(lands owned by the tax payers, who just might be Christians) lands, preventing any discussion of prayer in schools or schools functions is abridging the Freedom to exercise clause and nowhere does any of this REQUIRE people to practice.

You have gone past stopping the requirement to stopping the practice of in your arguments. Just because a law has religious flavor, still doesn't change it is a law BECAUSE the people want it, and as long as said law doesn't require religion or harm someone it should be allowed. IF the law is compelling an action or harming someone due to religious beliefs, sure stop it, but if a majority people don't want to deal with people drinking on a certain day, that is their right as long as they aren't telling people they have to do a religious act on that same day.

By trying to take all religion out of government you are in fact catering to a "belief" system as I posted earlier. Belief systems are religions and Atheist is the belief you are pushing on us by REQUIRING no "religion" touch ANY government.
By making funds available to charities, and preventing religious charities from participating you are discriminating based on religion rather than protecting from government bias. You are actually putting one belief system above another simply because of name.

And again, it says flat out that it is against the law to make laws respecting the establishment of religion. No one asked for them to be barred from being in the public, talking, or participating, but it is absolutely wrong for the government to make laws that force other people to respect the laws of their religion.

By changing the national motto, the Pledge of Allegiance, by our actions with Israel, and the various blue laws that we deal with, the religious are enforcing their views on others.

[Peyton]

The Broncos are on pace for 872 yards of offense against the Patriots.

[Beef]

(12-18-2011 05:37 PM)Jesus Wrote:  Is this a Football thread? I forget.

LOL, Jesus wondering why the frick we're talking religion on a football fan site. Awesome.

[mcsupersport]

(12-18-2011 06:00 PM)Radical Wrote:  And again, it says flat out that it is against the law to make laws respecting the establishment of religion. No one asked for them to be barred from being in the public, talking, or participating, but it is absolutely wrong for the government to make laws that force other people to respect the laws of their religion.

By changing the national motto, the Pledge of Allegiance, by our actions with Israel, and the various blue laws that we deal with, the religious are enforcing their views on others.

Last reply and I am done debating religion for another long while...........

The very nature of a democracy or republic is by and large that the majority enforces their beliefs on everyone. Whether you think Brothels are ok, or drugs or riding motorcycles without helmets they are all decisions that taken are most often away by our(American) society. Morals of the society will dictate the laws, and most morals are shaped by Beliefs(ie religion in Christians case). Many think nothing about forcing people to have Health Insurance, wearing a motorcycle helmet, buckling their seat-belt in a car, or outlawing drugs like cocaine, but will turn around and have an issue with no alcohol sales on Sunday because it is religious. There is no difference at all in any of those I listed, they are all basically for "someone's own good" whether it is their immortal soul or health doesn't really change the force involved. If you were arguing that Government shouldn't be able to force actions at ALL, I would have more respect for your argument, instead you seem to have an issue of one belief system over another as the "root cause" of the force.