The New "Tolerance"

[Flint]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

That said, marry your toaster oven, for all I care.

Are you familiar with Zappa's Church Of Appliantology (from Joe's Garage)?

[mrnoodle]

Correct. The problem isn't "OMG they're taking bibles out of courtrooms, how will we know if anyone's telling the truth now?!" The problem is, "Why are they after the bible all of a sudden?"

[Happy Monkey]

And that question can be boiled down to "we've had special treatment for so long, why can't we keep it?"

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

"we've had special treatment for so long, why can't we keep it?"

Exactly! Removing preferential treatment from common use, no matter how ingrained, does not constitue an "attack" against the affected parties. Actually all they are being expected to do is to maintain their composure and get along with everybody, on a level playing field. If anyone has a problem with that, then they are the problem.

Want to quit being "persecuted" by non-Christians? Then stop trying to write your book into laws that people will have to follow - regardless of whether they read your book or not. Simple. The "war" will be over when Christianity gets off of the warpath.

If your philosophy can't survive and thrive on it's own, without bullying it's way into a special "good 'ol boys club" status, then maybe, perhaps, there's a reason for that, a reason that can't be so easily blamed on outside forces?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Flint

Removing preferential treatment from common use, no matter how ingrained, does not constitue an "attack" against the affected parties.

We need you to go explain that the the Iraqi Sunnis. :-)

I guess that is why two governors were threatened with removal from office during the first years of the US for keeping prayer at the beginning of federal court?

[skysidhe]

I don't think so Bruce.

I thought the founding fathers were against one dominate religion controlling the country. People were given the freedom to worship how they will.I don't know of anyother time in american history, besides today and the puritain times where the US governments used fear of the wrath of god to keep people in line.


I don't know though. I only know what I think and don't have any facts to prove otherwise. ( at this moment)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_state

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

I don't think so Bruce.

I thought the founding fathers were against one dominate religion controlling the country. People were given the freedom to worship how they will.I don't know of anyother time in american history, besides today and the puritain times where the US governments used fear of the wrath of god to keep people in line.


I don't know though. I only know what I think and don't have any facts to prove otherwise. ( at this moment)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_state

Try going here and reading Onyx Cougar's posts #s 21 through 25. There is much truth there to what was actually going on outside the history book view of the early US.

PS. Especially her post #23

Founded by religious leaders... http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

[url]http://candst.tripod.com/toc.htm[/url

http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/jefferson_quotes.pdf?docID=761

[mrnoodle]

If it's something that was a fundamental part of the founding of the country, it can hardly be considered some evil "extra" appendage that we can now, blessedly, be rid of.

You talk like this is a matter of finally putting those wacky xtians in their place. It's not. It's a matter of trying to preserve the things that presumably made this country a good place to come to from 1776 till the Iraq war.

Christians are outnumbered now, and that's just the way it is. However, one of the good things about the so-called browning of America is that Mexicans are by and large Christian. What a conundrum for the libs -- penis envy for secular Europe clashing with their infatuation for any culture that has dark skinned people in it.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

it can hardly be considered some evil "extra" appendage that we can now, blessedly, be rid of

This is the same deceptive phrasing of the issue that I've been talking about. Expecting you to be able to get along nicely with others, without forcing your beliefs on unwilling people, does not, under any circumstances, equate to "getting rid of you" . . .

Just mind your own business and leave everybody else alone. Simple.

There is no "National Religion" - no matter how much spin you apply.

[wolf]

Exactly, but that's not the same as there not being any religious expression allowed.

[mrnoodle]

It's not deceptive at all. No two ways about it -- the antichristians want to eliminate any and all mention of God, the bible, or anything remotely related to the religion they despise from public discourse. They're not worried that anyone is going to force religion down their throats. They want people to have to hide their Christianity unless they're within the walls of a church. Once that happens, can the persecution that you so snidely dismiss be far behind?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

It's not deceptive at all. No two ways about it -- the antichristians want to eliminate any and all mention of God, the bible, or anything remotely related to the religion they despise from public discourse.

Would you care to identify this group of "antichristians"? I've never heard of them, nor of their plans.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

Exactly, but that's not the same as there not being any religious expression allowed.

Allowed in what context?

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

It's not deceptive at all. No two ways about it -- the antichristians want to eliminate any and all mention of God, the bible, or anything remotely related to the religion they despise from public discourse.

Could you give your definition of "public discourse"? Is it something other than "official government functions"?