|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 138 of 432:
| 
Feb 7 18:03 UTC 2006 |
(Whose Bill of Rights?? Ours or the terrorists?)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 139 of 432:
|
Feb 7 18:04 UTC 2006 |
I don't see how one could come to that conclusion unless he thought that
the Bill of Rights serves to protect the "rights" of the government
(e.g. the "right" to force schoolchildren to pray, the "right" to grant
special favors to some religious organizations, the "right" to prevent
unpopular groups from expressing their viewpoint, and so on.)
|
kingjon
|
|
response 140 of 432:
|
Feb 7 18:09 UTC 2006 |
I didn't say the hypothetical honest person was *right*, just *honest*. There
are a whole lot of honest but misguided people on every side of every political
debate.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 141 of 432:
|
Feb 7 18:12 UTC 2006 |
In regard to the ACLU lobbying...yes, it does in it efforts to protect civil
rights. But that is not done entirely by lobbying. In fact, much of the
support of the ACLU is tax deductible through the 501(c)3 tax-exempt donations
to the ACLU foundation. Here is a paragraph from the ACLU website about that:
"Defending First Amendment freedoms, equality, privacy rights and fundamental
fairness requires constant vigilance and support. Each year, individuals and
institutions -- including foundations, unions and corporations -- demonstrate
their commitment to those shared constitutional values through steady gifts
and grants to the ACLU Foundation. Many ACLU members also give generously
beyond their annual dues, through tax-deductible gifts to the ACLU
Foundation's litigation and public education programs, as well as through
special gifts that support the ACLU's lobbying efforts. This support is
indispensable in ensuring that the ACLU's core programs and special projects
are fully equipped."
|
gull
|
|
response 142 of 432:
|
Feb 7 19:01 UTC 2006 |
Generally most people I meet who oppose the ACLU do so because they
feel the ACLU is anti-religious. I think this is partly the fault of
the ACLU's public relations -- the many cases where they *support*
someone's right to religious expression don't get nearly enough press,
which allows right-wing mouthpieces to continue the drumbeat of "the
ACLU wants to take God away from you."
|
tod
|
|
response 143 of 432:
|
Feb 7 19:03 UTC 2006 |
Anti-Christian is more on target, imo.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 144 of 432:
|
Feb 7 19:05 UTC 2006 |
I wish there was a news source that would report the sorts of things that the
major sources don't consider "newsworthy", if necessary summarizing things like
NPR does on casualties in Iraq. Unfortunately, as things are now, only negative
or "sensational" stories get press.
|
gull
|
|
response 145 of 432:
|
Feb 7 19:08 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:143: Except that they've often defended Christians' individual
rights to express their religious faith. Where they come into conflict
with Christians is when people attempt to use government resources to
push the Christian faith on others. Unfortunately many Christians
believe that the government should act as an arm of the church, hence
the conflict.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 146 of 432:
|
Feb 7 19:35 UTC 2006 |
There are also more Christians than other sects, so they commit more
violations of civil rights.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 147 of 432:
|
Feb 7 19:40 UTC 2006 |
.... and also most likely have more civil rights violations committed against
them.
|
tod
|
|
response 148 of 432:
|
Feb 7 19:52 UTC 2006 |
re #147
Are you saying Christians have it harder than Jews when it comes to prayer
in school, pledge of allegiance, and 10 commandments posted in a court house?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 149 of 432:
|
Feb 7 19:53 UTC 2006 |
By other Christians, at that....
|
kingjon
|
|
response 150 of 432:
|
Feb 7 19:56 UTC 2006 |
Re #148: No, merely drawing the same conclusion as (I think) 146: The larger a
population, the more likely you are to find a certain attribute.
|
richard
|
|
response 151 of 432:
|
Feb 7 20:02 UTC 2006 |
kingjon, if a federal judge in your district was a Satanist, if that was his
religious belief that he held devoutly, do you think that judge should be able
to keep a picture of Satan in his courtroom?
|
tod
|
|
response 152 of 432:
|
Feb 7 20:05 UTC 2006 |
On the news last night, there was a story about a Judge that made the
courtroom say "Go Seahawks" several times last Friday. The first hearing was
for the sentencing of a killer and the family of the victims was traumatized
that they had to chant right before such an event.
|
richard
|
|
response 153 of 432:
|
Feb 7 20:12 UTC 2006 |
This idea that Christians are more persecuted than others in this country is
patently absurd. In many places, liquor store owners must close their stores
on the CHRISTIAN sabbath, Sunday, even if they are not Christian. They don't
make these liquor stores close on the muslim sabbath or the jewish sabbath.
Only the CHRISTIAN sabbath. Non-Christians in this country are also forced
to use a christian calendar, have christmas as a legal holiday, have "in god
we trust" on all their money, .etc Non Christians are beaten over the head
with christianity in many many ways, and persecuted if they don't accept it.
|
tod
|
|
response 154 of 432:
|
Feb 7 20:13 UTC 2006 |
When attorneys and onlookers rose as she took the bench, Grant asked them to
say "Go Seahawks" before they sat back down. When their response was too
quiet, she encouraged them to do it again.
"The tension was very high, and I thought it would be a way of people just
thinking of something else and releasing it," Grant said later. "It was a
diversion tactic to bring unison in the group."
But sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said the deputies in the room were stunned
and embarrassed. Deputy prosecutor Sunni Ko said the entire situation was
embarrassing.
"It's the most important day almost in their lives, for both families," Ko
said. "One family is seeing a son go off to prison, and one family is here
to find justice for their loved one who was murdered. It's important to them.
Do you think they want to root for the Seahawks?"
Kathy Patricelli, whose stepson Tino Patricelli was fatally shot by Teang,
said she didn't cheer.
"Super Bowl Sunday is Tino's one-year anniversary of the day he was
murdered," she said. "I was a little tiny bit offended- well, a lot
offended - because this was kind of an important day for us. Cheering for the
Seahawks with Steve Teang in the room, I didn't think it was appropriate".
The judge said she didn.t mean it to offend anyone.
"If the prosecutor and the others took it that way, as far as I'm concerned,
it's trite," she said, after hearing that Ko and the sheriff's deputies were
upset. "The germane issue was to focus on the reason we had to come back in
the first place -- public access to courts."
|
marcvh
|
|
response 155 of 432:
|
Feb 7 20:18 UTC 2006 |
The main difference is that any violations of the religious rights of
Christians is most likely going to be a matter of a rogue individual
(someone ignoring or misunderstanding the rules.) It's more common
for violations of the religious rights of minority believers to be
matters of institutionalized policy (written or unwritten) which is
obviously a much more serious matter.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 156 of 432:
|
Feb 7 22:05 UTC 2006 |
> I don't see how one could come to that conclusion unless he thought
> that the Bill of Rights serves to protect the "rights" of the
> government
You mean like the people who think the 2nd amendment (which is part of
the Bill of Rights) servers to protect the "rights" of the government?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 157 of 432:
|
Feb 7 22:38 UTC 2006 |
> the Christian world, where the image of Jesus on the
> cross is a key of the faith.
richard, you know nothing of Christianity if you write such a thing and
believe it. The image may be a reminder, but it's what the image is
referring to that is the key, not the image itself. The faith would not
crumble if the image were removed, or even mocked or defiled.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 158 of 432:
|
Feb 7 23:19 UTC 2006 |
> The faith would not crumble if the image were removed, or even
> mocked or defiled.
The faith has not crumbled despite the image removed, mocked, and
defiled.
|
richard
|
|
response 159 of 432:
|
Feb 8 01:03 UTC 2006 |
re #157 I did NOT say the faith would crumble without the image, just
that the image is and has been a key component in the buildup of
Christianity. If you think the image of Jesus hasn't help sell him,
particularly in parts of the world where there aren't as many literate
people and people respond to images more than words, you are naive.
And if you think the image of the cross isn't really important in the
selling of that faith, you are REALLY naive.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 160 of 432:
|
Feb 8 01:17 UTC 2006 |
The textbook for my religion class that covers the New Testament (I also have
one on the Old) says that depictions of the cross as a Christian symbol don't
start appearing for a *long* time -- on the order of a century? -- after the
event it symbolizes. In less-literate parts of the world, Christians are doing
what they can to increase literacy, not relying on symbols except as stopgap
measures. (I'm not sure what the Roman Catholic justification for the
veneration of symbols is, since what I said doesn't apply quite as much to the
Roman Catholic church.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 161 of 432:
|
Feb 8 01:54 UTC 2006 |
apropos: http://www.slate.com/id/2135670/
|
kingjon
|
|
response 162 of 432:
|
Feb 8 02:06 UTC 2006 |
Ah, yes, the distinction between veneration/adoration and worship. I'd
forgotten about that. Thanks for the reference!
|