"This is the true face of Islam" - Holland

[skydiverton 0]

Quote

Why is it that Western countryes dont understand that Muslims just want to live thir life as they have chousen,no muslim is going to tell me how to live my life unless i move to his country..its exact the same way the other way arround.

That's exactely with those extremists do not do. They move to a country and want the original population to adopt to their habits. If you say something about it you are called a racist of worse...
No problem with extremist muslims as long as they stay in their own country and do not bother me with their religion.

By the way my original statement was:
At the moment almost all wars and violance in the world can be related to the islamic terrorists.

Well at least one big terrorist died tonight in paris!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habit,
Especially when you are jumping a sport rig

[billvon 2,430]

>Thanks for proving my point - please show where the amendment
>mentions the other actions you describe.

I only mentioned one thing that was prohibited, and that was passing a law to use public money to construct or maintain symbols for any given religion.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I only mentioned one thing that was prohibited, and that was passing a law to use public money to construct or maintain symbols for any given religion.

1st Amendment: 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.

A law respecting an establishment of religion would be one in which you’d be forced to adhere to a particular religion. Creating or maintaining a religious symbol does not force you into a particular religion nor does it prohibit you from worshiping or not worshiping how you wish.

[billvon 2,430]

>Creating or maintaining a religious symbol does not force you into a
> particular religion nor does it prohibit you from worshiping or not
> worshiping how you wish.

I agree. There is no prohibition in the consitution against any group from putting up a monument in a national park. There IS a prohibition against the US government passing a law to assign money to do it.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>Creating or maintaining a religious symbol does not force you into a
> particular religion nor does it prohibit you from worshiping or not
> worshiping how you wish.

I agree. There is no prohibition in the consitution against any group from putting up a monument in a national park. There IS a prohibition against the US government passing a law to assign money to do it.

How so? It doesn't say that religion cannot or should not be in government. It just says that the government cannot force you to believe or follow one in particular.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I agree. There is no prohibition in the consitution against any group from putting up a monument in a national park. There IS a prohibition against the US government passing a law to assign money to do it.

Again, prove your cite - the amendment says nothing like that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,430]

>It just says that the government cannot force you to believe or follow one in particular.

Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establisment of religion.

That means they can't pass any laws that pertain to a religion. Not even little budget-related ones. But if _you_ want to put up a big cross in a public park (and you get approval) then there's nothing stopping you. Which is how it should be.

[billvon 2,430]

>Again, prove your cite - the amendment says nothing like that.

Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establisment of religion. No is a negative, meaning the opposite of yes. So when they say that Congress can make no law respecting any religion, it means they can't pass laws that pertain to a religion - and that includes budget appropriations.

[mnealtx 0]

[replyCongress shall make NO LAW respecting an establisment of religion.

That means they can't pass any laws that pertain to a religion. Not even little budget-related ones. But if _you_ want to put up a big cross in a public park (and you get approval) then there's nothing stopping you. Which is how it should be.

[billvon 2,430]

>That is not what it means . . . .

Ah well. The supreme court disagrees with you; perhaps you could take it up with them. Specifically, in the court case Lemon vs Kurtzman, the court ruled that the government cannot give money to parochial school teachers, because the government cannot fund religions. It was clear that any 'entanglement' between the government and religion violated the first amendment. In Engle vs Vitale, the court ruled that public schools cannot require students to say prayers - again, because the federal government cannot involve itself with religious devotions.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establisment of religion.

Bill, you emphasize the NO LAW part, yet do not emphasize the RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION part, which is the operative portion of the "Establishment Clause"... it mean that the government does not recognize religion period... To not treat a religious group like any other is recognition... you said before that taxation is not natural, I disagree... it is a natural part of any government... by telling a church that it does not have to pay real estate taxes it deprives local governments of needed revenues, reduces the tax base, and gives them (the church) a free ride...

The Supreme Court has interpreted what the Establishment Clause means, which I cited in a previous post... it does not mean that the government can't pass laws that affect religious groups, only that they do not affect religious groups any more or any less than any other group...

In reality, our laws are filled with laws that respect the establishment of religion... An example would be the respect shown to holy sites during combat... their status is codified in military regulations (which are laws)... Another example would be Chapels on military bases that are constructed and maintained by tax dollars, of Chaplains in the military who are paid by our tax dollars... Another example would be the confidentiality of the confessional... and a priest not being able to be compelled to testify... if we did not have laws respecting the establishment of religion would would not recognize the individual's status as a priest, or that there is such a thing as confession...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Duckwater 0]

Quote

We have "Christians" in this country that shoot abortion doctors and bomb clinics, a form of terrorism... But we just do not call it that.

When 911 happened, Muslims en-masse cheered like there was no tomorrow. When Oklahoma City happened, no big groups of people cheer. When some nut bombs a clinic, Churches don't all cheer and Praise.

"Religion is the root of all evil" - George Carlin

"Islam is the root of all evil" - Mike Skaggs

Mike
-----

[Trent 0]

Well said Josh, and I agree with your position here. It's always interesting to hear peoples' interpretation of what others think is fairly simple and straightforward. Want real confusion? Ask a lawyer.

Oh, hello again!

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

That's exactely with those extremists do not do. They move to a country and want the original population to adopt to their habits. If you say something about it you are called a racist of worse...

Americans do the same. For that matter Christians as a whole. Christians moved to Africa, run programs all over the continent.

How did South America and Mexico all become such staunch Catholic based? Christian imperialism spread over centuries is how.

And there are many faith-based groups getting a foothold in Iraq. Bringing aid and such, but also as part of the agenda, with the blessing of the US government, they are trying to get a Christian foothold in that country as part of the reconstruction.

It ain't just muslims that do that -

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

When 911 happened, Muslims en-masse cheered like there was no tomorrow. When Oklahoma City happened, no big groups of people cheer. When some nut bombs a clinic, Churches don't all cheer and Praise.

How do you know? I know this is tough to convince a skydiver of, but just because it isn't on video doesn't mean it didn't happen.