Islam - a Religion like other Religions

[imaznumkay]

i think buddhism's the most un-corrupted religion there is....
we don't praise god, we worship and learn the teachings.
those teachings aren't like "omg god created earth", its about the natural aspect of things. how things are born, lived, and go back to nature. i may not know much about buddhism but ive learned that its not as extreme as other religions so i take it as the most favorable religion (i personally don't think it should be a religion lol) there is.

[Sam12345]

Originally Posted by imaznumkay

i think buddhism's the most un-corrupted religion there is....
we don't praise god, we worship and learn the teachings.
those teachings aren't like "omg god created earth", its about the natural aspect of things. how things are born, lived, and go back to nature. i may not know much about buddhism but ive learned that its not as extreme as other religions so i take it as the most favorable religion (i personally don't think it should be a religion lol) there is.

haha that line made me lol

[Neurorad]

Originally Posted by imaznumkay

...we worship and learn the teachings...
i may not know much about buddhism...

I guess you don't learn that well.

[Neurorad]

Originally Posted by ganeil

There is absolutely no reason for the government to treat any religion in a hostile manner nor for it to treat all religions equally. It simply cannot establish a religion nor interfere with the free exercise of any. Posting the 10 Commandments in a court house or placing a Nativity scene on a fire house lawn does not in any way establish a religion. It simply acknowledges that the people of a community share a certain set of beliefs. It does not force others to accept those beliefs nor does it hinder anyone from holding other beliefs.

The fact that Christmas is a national holiday has surely not made us any less welcoming as a nation to non-Christians, has it? It is simply an affirmation that this nation was founded by and is populated by people who celebrated the birth of Christ. There is a world of difference between such an acknowledgment and using the police power of the state to compel attendance at Christmas Mass.

The 'state' CANNOT give 1 religion preference over another. PERIOD.

Unless the judge is Christian. Then it can, and does.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

The 'state' CANNOT give 1 religion preference over another. PERIOD.

Unless the judge is Christian. Then it can, and does.

Why should all religions be treated equally? Can you be specific?

[Neurorad]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Why should all religions be treated equally? Can you be specific?

Why? Because 1 is not better than any other (despite what any 1 person believes).

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Why? Because 1 is not better than any other (despite what any 1 person believes).

If a hypothetical community is 90% Mormon, then it makes sense for their Mormon symbolism and morality to determine what appears in public art and entertainment as well as monuments. This might be accomplished in local ordinances.

If because of their faith 75% of Americans would protect the life of either the unborn or of criminals on death row, then they might secure a constitutional amendment for that purpose.

In the first scenario, if a few muslims moved to the area and sought access to prayer rooms in public buildings, they should likely be denied that as it is not a reasonable use of public property since so few would use it.

In the second scenario, if an amendment were offered, and approved by 3/4 of the states, then the Baal worshippers over in Canaan would not be able to continue perpetrating infanticide. They would have to conform to what society has determined as acceptable.

I see no good reason why all religions (or lack thereof) must be treated equally.

[Neurorad]

Originally Posted by scottwww

If a hypothetical community is 90% Mormon, then it makes sense for their Mormon symbolism and morality to determine what appears in public art and entertainment as well as monuments. This might be accomplished in local ordinances.

Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "the very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities ... One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote."

Just because it's the majority of the people, doesn't give them the right to effectively decide.

I can see why Christian fundamentalists are so upset about this issue - it's a slap in the face. Basically, 'your religion is the same as every other, in the eyes of the law'. No deeply religious person wants to hear that; he wants to hear 'truthiness'.

[Neurorad]

Truthiness, defined:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/...?videoId=24039

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "the very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities ... One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote."

Just because it's the majority of the people, doesn't give them the right to effectively decide.

I can see why Christian fundamentalists are so upset about this issue - it's a slap in the face. Basically, 'your religion is the same as every other, in the eyes of the law'. No deeply religious person wants to hear that; he wants to hear 'truthiness'.

But the Bill of Rights says nothing about the how the government is to treat various religious symbols. It merely prohibits the Congress from establishing a national religion or restricting people's right to freely exercise their religion. The founders knew exactly what was meant by the establishment of religion as a number of the ratifying states had official state religions at the time. It did not mean restricting Christmas decorations.

The same Congress that passed the Bill of Rights also began its sessions with a prayer led by a government paid chaplain, and passed a resolution calling for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "the very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities ... One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote."

Just because it's the majority of the people, doesn't give them the right to effectively decide.

I can see why Christian fundamentalists are so upset about this issue - it's a slap in the face. Basically, 'your religion is the same as every other, in the eyes of the law'. No deeply religious person wants to hear that; he wants to hear 'truthiness'.

The case you are referring to had to do with a state board of education forcing students to recite the pledge of allegiance. Some Jehovah's Witness students objected because of their religion.

What does this have to do with people being able to express their freedom of religion except to support that freedom? You say that it is a slap in the face of Christians. No, it is fundamentally believed by Christians that the government shall not impose on citizens freedom of religion.

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Government of limited power need not be anemic government. Assurance that rights are secure tends to diminish fear and jealousy of strong government, and by making us feel safe to live under it makes for its better support. Without promise of a limiting Bill of Rights it is [319 U.S. 624, 637] doubtful if our Constitution could have mustered enough strength to enable its ratification. To enforce those rights today is not to choose weak government over strong government. It is only to adhere as a means of strength to individual freedom of mind in preference to officially disciplined uniformity for which history indicates a disappointing and disastrous end.
The subject now before us exemplifies this principle. Free public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality, will not be partisan or enemy of any class, creed, party, or faction. If it is to impose any ideological discipline, however, each party or denomination must seek to control, or failing that, to weaken the influence of the educational system. Observance of the limitations of the Constitution will not weaken government in the field appropriate for its exercise.

I didn't read the entire text of the court's opinion. It appears that you didn't either. Our schools today violate in many ways the student's freedom of religion. In most cases, the action of the school board is not so boldly troublesome as it was in this court case where the students who didn't recite the pledge of allegiance were expelled from school.

BTW: At the time of this court decision to overturn the prior opposite decision, the words "under God" had never yet been part of the pledge. It was purely a pledge to the United States. The words "under God" were added eight years later (1951). I suspect that without "under God" much of what you were trying to achieve with your post was in fact lost. I am glad the court ruled to overturn the prior (1940) decision.

[imaznumkay]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

I guess you don't learn that well.

Attachment 167327

Attachment 167328

i guess so