 |
| |
|
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
I wonder why anyone still bothers with arguing with BK tbh. Done it once or twice but he's so set in his dogmatic viewpoints that you're not going to budge him, add to that a fair dose of ignorance and basically what you get is a slightly more eloquent Fez, just fundy christian instead of fascist. Might as well argue with your curtains or something for all the good it'll do.
As for the thread itself, not letting Muslims swear on the Koran instead of the Bible is truly dense. I mean we've all seen what kind of value they attach to it, it'd probably mean an awful lot more to the average muslim than swearing on the bible does for the average christian. I mean if you pick on one religion then you should kick em all out of the courtroom where they have no business anyway really.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Why even argue with Ben about what is or isn't constitutional? As his stupid remark to me about "One Nation, Under God" shows, he doesn't even know what the U.S. Constitution says
|
Yet, I did manage to cite the correct amendment to the constitution regarding the term limitation passed after Roosevelt's 4 term presidency.
So just because I believed that the constitution of the united states did include that phrase, of one nation under God, it hardly means that I know nothing of the US Constitution.
As for the constitutionality of the establishment clause, historically, it makes sense to me what the founding fathers intended to do, when you look at the historical context. Back then, most of the states in Europe had an established religion, whether it were Islam, or Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Catholicism, or Orthodoxy. The United States was one of the innovators, regarding religious liberty, IIRC, Prussia was the very first. The idea that there was to be no established religion, was extremely radical.
What I see, is that the establishment clause intended to prevent the establishment of one religion, in the sense that Anglicanism could not become the state religion, as seen in England. To lump all of Christianity made little sense due to the disparity in beliefs across the various denominations.
Therefore, I do not see the use of a bible contradicts the establishment clause, since it fails the very first test, in the advancement of one religion over the others.
Granted, there are problems with the ritual, but these fall under the heading of freedom of conscience, rather than the establishment clause. While I agree with Imran, in how they should be changed, what I disagree with is the rationale.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't try to shoot Muslims, and I don't go out of my way to harrass them, or kill them, as what happens to Christians in most Muslim countries who dare to practice their religion openly. |
Lies.
Even if you look at the worst of the worst (Iran and Saudi Arabia), you won't see people killed by the government for their non-Muslim faith. If you look at the better countries, you'll see that there are fairly peaceful relations between religions, and the possibility to worship whatever deity you wish to worship (though Islam often has special favours).
As for your BAM that there are no secular courts in the Muslim world: just look at Turkey's courts, and stop BAMing please
Last edited by Spiffor on 25-06-2005 at 19:07
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
IIRC, Prussia was the very first. |
No, Prussia was officially Lutheran. While Roman Catholics were tolerated they were restricted in a variety of ways, especially with regards to holding government posts.
For a brief period in the 16th century France tolerated Protestan religions, but of course we all know how that ended.
England's degree of toleration of other Christian religions varied. It tended to be more tolerant of other Protestant sects than to the Roman Catholic Church, largely because the Pope had declared the Church and the royalty of England heretical and had called for the overthrow of both. This was the official position of the papacy until the late 19th century. The Lutherans at least had a treaty granting them the right to exist in those nations in which the rulers chose Lutheranism as the state religion. Under Queen Elizabeth other Christian religions including Roman Catholicism were in fact officially tolerated. There were some catches though. All Christians had to also be members of the state church and were expected to attend and to give tithes. Most of the non-Anglican Protestant churches got around this by having their services later on Sunday or on othe days of the week. Those wishing to practice Roman Catholicism had an additional problem since all priests were required to swear an oath to the monarch. Since the papacy refused to allow this Roman catholic priests were illegal. IIRC though the Hannover monarchs rescinded this requirement, so by the time of the American Revolution Roamn Catholics were able to practice their reigion in England. I'm not certain when the rrestrictions upon government service and entry to the bar were lifted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
I can not believe there is even a debate.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-06-2005 03:51
except I don't believe that religion has anything to do in public affairs.
)
Listen to Imran. He is wise. 
|