Ban on discussion of religion or politics prevents film discussion.

[Merrick]

Originally Posted by ground chuck

oh my....this is what it's come to, this is not a church and state forum, its friggin blu-ray forum. our constitution separates church and state, not moderators of a forum site. first ammendment rights, maybe they should be practiced.

Umm, actually... no (though I whole-heartedly support you call for 1st amendment rights!). The US Constitution does no such thing. It *specifically* states that congress and *congress only* keep its mitts out of *an establishment of religion* and has nothing to say about any other kind of interaction between "church and state" in any other shape or form. That actual words of import here:

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.

Notice the one and *only* direction of interaction prohibited here: Congress ---> institution

And *absolutely* no statement regarding the reverse: institution ---> Congress

And notice additionally how Congress' relation to "an establishment of religion" is pretty explicitly equated with "freedom of speech", "the press", "the right of the people peacably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances."

So, free speech is ok as long as it doesn't interfere with government? Don't think so. So the same clearly isn't true of "establishments of religion."

For the record, the oft-quoted "separation of church and state" appears in no founding Federal document, and certainly not the Constitution or any amendment. The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Sorry, but no honest person can consider that binding on the either the Federal government or American citizens.

[GORT]

Originally Posted by Merrick

Umm, actually... no (though I whole-heartedly support you call for 1st amendment rights!). The US Constitution does no such thing. It *specifically* states that congress and *congress only* keep its mitts out of *an establishment of religion* and has nothing to say about any other kind of interaction between "church and state" in any other shape or form. That actual words of import here:

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.

Notice the one and *only* direction of interaction prohibited here: Congress ---> institution

And *absolutely* no statement regarding the reverse: institution ---> Congress

And notice additionally how Congress' relation to "an establishment of religion" is pretty explicitly equated with "freedom of speech", "the press", "the right of the people peacably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances."

So, free speech is ok as long as it doesn't interfere with government? Don't think so. So the same clearly isn't true of "establishments of religion."

For the record, the oft-quoted "separation of church and state" appears in no founding Federal document, and certainly not the Constitution or any amendment. The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Sorry, but no honest person can consider that binding on the either the Federal government or American citizens.

A+

[davidPS3]

And the answer is??

[terjeber]

Originally Posted by Merrick

For the record, the oft-quoted "separation of church and state" appears in no founding Federal document, and certainly not the Constitution or any amendment. The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

You are absolutely correct. Sorta. Article IV says: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Jefferson, probably one of the sharpest people ever wandering around the offices of DC, and a staunch atheist, understood the consequences. Thankfully the Common Law system in the US makes this wall of separation more or less impossible to tear down.

Sadly, the current people claiming to be Republicans, the likes of Bush Jr etc, who have no idea what a Republican is, and who hold very few political views that are in line with what was once the party of ideas used to stand for, have desperately been trying to tear down this wall. This is exceedingly sad, since one of the pillars that the country was built on, albeit a very small pillar, was the security from religious persecution. There is only one way to ensure freedom from religious persecution and that is to have a 100% secular government. This doesn't mean that individuals within it has to be, just the organization it self. A secular government requires a wall as described by Jefferson.

So, given that the US has a Common Law system, and a Common Law system has to look strongly at the intention behind legislation, not just the words used, it is not hard to argue that the US in fact has a legal requirement to maintain a strong, insurmountable wall between religion and state. Thankfully.

This is one of the many things that makes the US a great place to live. No matter how hard the lunatics on the religious right try, they can't make this country into their own version of Afghanistan under Taliban (with a different religion, but who cares?). Oh, and they are trying to do just that. Those of us who live in the US by choice, not by accident of birth, are plenty happy that this wall exists and that it is exceedingly hard to tear down.

[iceman]

Originally Posted by terjeber

You are absolutely correct. Sorta. Article IV says: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Jefferson, probably one of the sharpest people ever wandering around the offices of DC, and a staunch atheist, understood the consequences. Thankfully the Common Law system in the US makes this wall of separation more or less impossible to tear down.

Sadly, the current people claiming to be Republicans, the likes of Bush Jr etc, who have no idea what a Republican is, and who hold very few political views that are in line with what was once the party of ideas used to stand for, have desperately been trying to tear down this wall. This is exceedingly sad, since one of the pillars that the country was built on, albeit a very small pillar, was the security from religious persecution. There is only one way to ensure freedom from religious persecution and that is to have a 100% secular government. This doesn't mean that individuals within it has to be, just the organization it self. A secular government requires a wall as described by Jefferson.

So, given that the US has a Common Law system, and a Common Law system has to look strongly at the intention behind legislation, not just the words used, it is not hard to argue that the US in fact has a legal requirement to maintain a strong, insurmountable wall between religion and state. Thankfully.

This is one of the many things that makes the US a great place to live. No matter how hard the lunatics on the religious right try, they can't make this country into their own version of Afghanistan under Taliban (with a different religion, but who cares?). Oh, and they are trying to do just that. Those of us who live in the US by choice, not by accident of birth, are plenty happy that this wall exists and that it is exceedingly hard to tear down.

This thread is for discussing IF/when it's allowed to discuss religion/politics, not TO discuss religion/religion.

[Grisle]

It's crazy how quickly things turn nasty when talking about religion or politics. A little off topic I just noticed your join date is 2003 Iceman...how long has this board been around?

[buckshot]

Originally Posted by Grisle

It's crazy how quickly things turn nasty when talking about religion or politics. A little off topic I just noticed your join date is 2003 Iceman...how long has this board been around?

thousands of years ago, robot santa claus created this website from some bone bits of string and fecal matter. which were hurled at predators for we were to stupid to understand their significance.

from what i've seen iceman and marwin created this site in 2003. they are the creators.

[WickyWoo]

This thread is for discussing IF/when it's allowed to discuss religion/politics, not TO discuss religion/religion.

Thank you

[iceman]

ok, thread locked :>

[ottscay]

Originally Posted by terjeber

Jefferson, probably one of the sharpest people ever wandering around the offices of DC, and a staunch atheist, understood the consequences.

That's not true (and I am an atheist). Jefferson was a staunch Deist, a theological outlook inspired by the European Enlightenment. Deism espouses belief in a non-personal God that created the universe and set its laws in motion, but does not interphere in day to day operations. Deism accepts that some people may be more morally enlightened, but doesn't generally accept miraculous acts or direct revelation. That's why Jefferson made the aptly named Jefferson Bible, which espoused what he thought was valuble about Jesus' moral teachings but removed supernatural events from the story.

In short, Jefferson was certainly not a Christian, but he was niether a materialist nor an atheist either.

My strongest belief is that all of us, on all sides of a debate, need to spend more time adhering to the facts rather than trying to get the facts to adhere to our preconceptions...