First Amendment = Christianity Only

[Doubting Thomas]

I've often said that fundamentalist Christians seem to think that "freedom of religion" really means "freedom of Christianity." Now we have one of those fucktards actually saying so. Anyone who doesn't think that the religious right want to turn the country into a Christian theocracy needs to get a clue.

In the past I've actually heard a Christian say that the Establishment Clause only means that the government can't favor one denomination of Christianity over another, and no other religions are protected.

I love how Christian conservatves advocate a strictly literal interpretation of the constitution until it doesn't suit their agenda.

Well, they do the exact same thing with their bible, so why not do it with other holy documents?

[Mister Agenda]

The Constitution was structured such that it could be amended in order to reflect the current times. It is, as such, an inherently secular, not religious document.

Bryan Fischer is the dumb, ignorant, vile little man.

Amend? Maybe. Abolish? I think not!

And who gets a ratsass about Fischer?

Atheists here waste more time, and words "assuming" than investigating.

As time marches on, I realize more and more this isn't about an exchange of ideas. Its about selfish entertainment. And through whatever means possible to demean anyone on the other side of your "lines" of thought..... which said lines inexplicably varies according to the atheist!

It just goes to show what choas exsits without the Lord!

The only one talking about abolishing it is you. An exchange of ideas is impossible when dealing with someone who adds to what other people say and argues against what he's added. In other words, you repeatedly assume too much rather than trying to actually understand what we're saying.

Someone says prayer is talking to yourself, you go on about how it doesn't hurt anybody and why are we trying to stop kids from praying in school. No one said the mere act of praying is harmful or that teachers should stop kids from praying quietly.

Someone says the founder's intent is irrelevant to the modern interpretation of the Constitution, you go on about how important the Constitution is. No one said the Constitution isn't important. It's the basis of our law. But if the first amendment were understood by the courts to only apply to Christianity, we would have to amend that amendment, because it would be in the same boat as slavery and women and black people not being allowed to vote: a relic of a time when even educated men didn't know better.

It's not even so much you being wrong as you not even being on the same topic as the rest of us.

[Cyberman]

Tear up the constitution and see what happens. That 200 year old paper is the only thing that is protecting your ass.

Not mine (and I've never even had a donkey). I realise you were addressing Min, but perhaps if you'd spent a little more time practising what you preach and doing a tad more investigating rather than assuming, you might have spotted that a good percentage of us are not American.

"Ingnorant" indeed.

[Esquilax]

Tear up the constitution and see what happens. That 200 year old paper is the only thing that is protecting your ass.

I'm awfully interested in why you decided to phrase this as though the only thing stopping your religion from becoming a violent theocracy is the law?

Somewhat telling, that.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Tear up the constitution and see what happens. That 200 year old paper is the only thing that is protecting your ass.

I'm awfully interested in why you decided to phrase this as though the only thing stopping your religion from becoming a violent theocracy is the law?

Somewhat telling, that.

I've spoken to more than a few American Christians who consider us brits to be actually "oppressed" because we don't have guns. By way of evidence they've offered a few sensationalist "news" articles which tell of how parts of the UK are under sharia law and how (not withstanding that the UK has a murder rate about a quarter of the US) we all live in fear and trembling of the criminals against whom we are defenseless.

Its mildly amusing.

---

Tear up the constitution and see what happens. That 200 year old paper is the only thing that is protecting your ass.

Not mine (and I've never even had a donkey). I realise you were addressing Min, but perhaps if you'd spent a little more time practising what you preach and doing a tad more investigating rather than assuming, you might have spotted that a good percentage of us are not American.

"Ingnorant" indeed.

I thought EVERYONE was American

[Cyberman]

Years ago when I was working in the Department, I had a work colleague (named Martin Prince - I'm not joking) who told me of a friend of his who worked as a guide for some Wild West themed tourist place up in Bristol or somesuch. This guy was dressed as a cowboy and adopted a cowboy drawl, which utterly failed to disguise his natural and very broad West Country accent. So he would greet visitors with the classic "Well howdy, me ducks!"

[Mystical]

Tear up the constitution and see what happens. That 200 year old paper is the only thing that is protecting your ass.

I'm awfully interested in why you decided to phrase this as though the only thing stopping your religion from becoming a violent theocracy is the law?

Somewhat telling, that.

That's what I thought when I read it too! Funny how if the Constitution were ripped to pieces I'd still respect his right to religious freedom but I'd be in danger from the Christians!

I've heard a few statements from Christians this year as a matter of fact, to that effect-- including calling for the deaths of gays (my own father and my friends father).

I've seen someone literally tear up at the thought of how Israel and the Jews are "gods chosen people", and in the same breath offered a romanticized notion to blow up a mosque to die for those Jews.

Regularly and often I hear this same offhand threat used by Christians, too--to the effect of, "Respect the Constitution and my right to have a gun, because without it I'd be shooting you with that same gun, you. ________atheist/gay/liberal/politically correct person________. "

I don't consider the Bible benign, anymore. Any question in my mind has been concreted by the mindsets of fervent Christians and a review of history. History has proven time and time again, that when unleashed, the Bible is used for genocide and oppression.

Ronedee, you should be ashamed of yourself. I am no danger to you but if given the chance, you would be to me. I'm a better person on the inside, than you, because I am an atheist.

[WackyWicky]

I'm awfully interested in why you decided to phrase this as though the only thing stopping your religion from becoming a violent theocracy is the law?

Somewhat telling, that.

That's what I thought when I read it too! Funny how if the Constitution were ripped to pieces I'd still respect his right to religious freedom but I'd be in danger from the Christians!

I've heard a few statements from Christians this year as a matter of fact, to that effect-- including calling for the deaths of gays (my own father and my friends father).

I've seen someone literally tear up at the thought of how Israel and the Jews are "gods chosen people", and in the same breath offered a romanticized notion to blow up a mosque to die for those Jews.

Regularly and often I hear this same offhand threat used by Christians, too--to the effect of, "Respect the Constitution and my right to have a gun, because without it I'd be shooting you with that same gun, you. ________atheist/gay/liberal/politically correct person________. "

I don't consider the Bible benign, anymore. Any question in my mind has been concreted by the mindsets of fervent Christians and a review of history. History has proven time and time again, that when unleashed, the Bible is used for genocide and oppression.

Ronedee, you should be ashamed of yourself. I am no danger to you but if given the chance, you would be to me. I'm a better person on the inside, than you, because I am an atheist.

The Constitution of the United States (so you will be in no way be confused with some other constitutation) is an extremely complicated document dressed up in simplistic language.

A couple of instances: "freedom of religion" (first amendment) is generally considered to encompass all religions but what did that really mean to our "Founding Fathers"? I, frankly don't know but I don't see how it can be taken anyway but literally. I don't see how it would be possible to take a liberal stance and say it only pertains to Christianity. Some will.

"...right to bare arms.." Much as I'd like to take an interpretive stance here and suggest it allows the government the right and, possibly, the need to control what "arms" will not be allowed and how to control them, as liberal as I am I have to disagree with the liberals and even the conservatives and say any and all "arms" should be allowed all citizens of the United States. That includes anything from Atomic weapons to pinfire pistols. So I am a conservative when it comes to the Constitution

I believe, further, that there must be controls over what kinds of weapons are to be owned/operated by whom. But given the 2nd amendment I can't see how that can be accomplished.

I am a liberal politically but believe that if any part of the Constitution is viewed liberally then it becomes invalid simply because all parts would be open to interpretation and would loose its strength.

End of ?rant?

Robert

[Minimalist]

but what did that really mean to our "Founding Fathers"?

"If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews, or Christian of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."

-- George Washington

He seems to get it.

[Ryantology]

I am a liberal politically but believe that if any part of the Constitution is viewed liberally then it becomes invalid simply because all parts would be open to interpretation and would loose its strength.

I'm pretty sure its flexibility and susceptibility to interpretation was intentional. The founding fathers didn't strike me as possessing the collective ego to hold the conceit that they invented a perfect document of law.