response 126 of 236:

Aug 27 05:02 UTC 2000

 
 Hey Tod, that site is almost as funny as Scary Movie. hee hee  ;)

response 128 of 236:

Aug 30 08:51 UTC 2000

re#123 & 126:  Stacie, what exactly is it that you object to about a
site that 'reviews' movies from a conservative christian perspective
to point out issues for discussion that one might have?  Do you feel
the same way about Leiberman's views on 'Hollywood and the Movies'?
If not why not?  I'm sure there are advocacy sites that review media and
literature to advocate any number of views such as NAMBLA, bestiality,
incest, etc..  Why did you choose to ridicule that particular one?
I've read it a little, it seemed rather harmless.  Maybe I missed the
part where the site advocated vandalizing patrons of 'banned' movies
by throwing red paint on them or something like that....

There used to be something in this country called a 'first amendment'
that prohibited among other things the establishment of a 'state
religion'.  It has been apparently replaced at some point by one
requiring the establishment of a 'state religion' of 'atheism' or
'anti-religious' and prohibiting the expression of any organized
traditional faith unless it happens to be a nominal one but of a
highly vocal minority...the peyote church or the rastamans for example.

response 130 of 236:

Aug 31 20:36 UTC 2000

  re #128:  I assume you're being intentionally obtuse, but the whole
  idea that you can't express a negative opinion on something without
  qualifying it with clarifications outlining everything else you
  happen to be opposed to is just silly.  The fact that Stacie doesn't
  mention NAMBLA, bestiality, or Senator Lieberman in her response
  should not encourage you to simply take your best guess at what her
  position might be and read that into her text.

  I'm also not sure how you got from "Stacie was amused by that movie
  review site" to "society wants to outlaw religion."  Again, I assume
  you're being intentionally illogical here, but as there are people
  who make such statements and seem to expect to be taken seriously, I'm
  not quite sure what to think..

response 132 of 236:

Sep 1 06:00 UTC 2000

  I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who really believes it.

  At the very least, anyone who thinks that the US populace is blatantly
  hostile towards public professions of religious belief has been watching
  a presidential campaign very different than the one in my universe.

response 134 of 236:

Sep 2 03:34 UTC 2000

That's part of why it is so hard to understand why so much effort is going
into outlawing religious expression.  And it also explains why it's the
courts, and not the legislature, doing the outlawing.

response 136 of 236:

Sep 2 09:06 UTC 2000

re#135: It that what the constitution said?  Last time I looked that
there 'constitional' thingy prohibited an establishment of a 
'state religion'.  A 'strict constructionist' would claim that while it
ment that while 'connecticut' might recognize 'gay marriage' it could
not impose its 'religious view' on Utah which has a rather different
religious tradition...A 'liberal' interpretation of the Constitution
might be that a US citizen from Florida or Texas with a legal 'CCW'
permit from either must be allowed to carry such in any other 'state'.

The courts *are* outlawing individual religious expression as well as
all other 'states rights'.  They are.
I don't have to make up hypothetical situations.  There are more than
enough in the current media.(biased as it is)

response 138 of 236:

Sep 2 18:11 UTC 2000

The word used in the first amendment is "establish", which at that time meant
"state religion."  The thing being banned was the Church of Virginia, the
Church of Scotland, the Church of England, and so on so forth: there would
NOT be a Church of the United States.

Public prayer is not an establishment of religion, no matter how much the
Supreme Court (following the lead of the atheists) might try to say it is.

response 140 of 236:

Sep 2 19:30 UTC 2000

If a kid going to school has to sit and pray with the rest of the class, it
makes very little practical difference whether the kid is told that the prayer
is part of being a good person, a universal belief in the Christian God, or
the Church of Burns Park Elementary.  It's still the school dictating
("establishing") religion for its students.  Since public schools are
considered to be government actors, when a school religion is established,
a government religion is established.  Likewise, if a school official were
to declare to their students that there is no god, that would be a school
establishment of atheism, and would also probably be illegal.

But that's all about schools, and to a lesser extent other government
agencies, doing things in an official capacity.  If an individual wants to
talk about their religion, or pray, or whatever, they can do so as openly as
they want, as long as they're not creating a disruption of the sort that would
be banned if the content were non-religious.  If a student wants to pray
quietly at their desk, and it's not interfering with the rest of the class,
that's not illegal.  If a student wants to pray out loud at recess, when the
other kids are running around talking about whatever they want, it would be
illegal to stop them.  Where the problem comes in is when somebody wants the
rest of the class to pray along with them, since doing so would involve the
class, and by extension the school and the government, establishing a class
religion.

The Constitution doesn't spell that out all that explicitly.  It doesn't spell
out anything else all that explicitly either.  There is more than 200 years
of case law interpreting the Constitution, and the recent caselaw is pretty
consistent on this.

response 142 of 236:

Sep 3 01:21 UTC 2000

 "Public prayer is not an establishment of religion, no matter how much the
 Supreme Court (following the lead of the atheists) might try to say it is."

i'm confused. i thought the job of the supreme court was to say just that.
yea or nay.  what system of government do you live under,  gelinas?

response 144 of 236:

Sep 3 01:32 UTC 2000

re #141: I'm sorry, but the courts are not forcing you to be silent at all. You
can pray and observe all you want. You just can't do it at government-sponsored
events and in facilities paid for by the government. And that's the way it
should be.

response 146 of 236:

Sep 3 04:12 UTC 2000

They establish laws?  Wow, that's news to me.

Nothing stops you from praying in school.  Absolutely nothing.  In fact, it
would probably be a violation of your constitutional rights if the government
tried to prevent you from praying in school.

response 148 of 236:

Sep 3 11:32 UTC 2000

re: #145 & 146  ummmm....congress establishes bills, the president signs them
into law, the supreme court interpets them.   where does one look to be
"right?"