JayHoover

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by JayHoover

Clever.

Now that your insult is out of the way, are you able to address the issues?

And what issues would those be?

Things aren't exactly the way you want them?

You might want to define "issues" down a bit.

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by JayHoover

Do you really care to reduce this to exclusive black-and-white arguments?

No, I'm trying to figure out where you draw the line of freedom a private business has.

Obviously, there are areas that do not adhere to the black-and-white you are suggesting. But you also mis-apply the illustration.

I am talking about the freedom a private company has to operate as it sees fit without any governmental intrusion.

The anti-discrimination laws are in place to keep prejudices in check, and that protects Christians and Jews (and all religions and lack of religions) equally.

What laws protect Christians?

Just like a blind "majority rules" stance doesn't mean all rules are noble and right and fair, all businesses will not behave fair and honestly without some regulations.

Business is inherently unfair[/i], that's the nature of it. We don't need a government regulating 'fairness', that defeats the whole point of free enterprise.

Now I never said that Macy's can be run any way it wants.

Why not??????

I said it can set reasonable store policies.

How do you determine what policies are reasonable and which are not?

Once upon a time, saying "Merry Christmas" to any and all was not an issue. today it is and they can change their policy accordingly.

Can they also hire people based on race and gender?

How that compares to your example about hiring practices is this: It doesn't.

It most certainly does! Either a private company has freedom or it doesn't.

Macy's can't refuse to hire someone because they are or aren't a specific religion.

Why not????

But once hired, they can say, "Our policy is to say 'Happy Holidays' to our customers."

I agree, as a private company, they can dictae many policies to their employees. They can dictate hair length, clean shaveness, dress code, any manner of things.

You can either agree to that, or not.

I am more interested in seeing where you draw the line between the freedom a private company posseses and where that freedom ends.

I used to work for a techical support company and they had a script I needed to say upon answering a call. If I didn't answer it properly, I was not doing the job I had agreed to do.

They have a right to dismiss me if I don't do the job I agreed to do.

Yep, they certainly do. And they also had the right to not hire you in thr first place based on any number of criteria. They also have the right to fire you for any reason or no reason at all. They can simply say, "Your fired, you have 3 minutes to pack your things and get off our property" and never give you a reason why.

So I don't see the point you're trying to make. It's not a case of rampant unregulated freedom for businesses, and it's not a case of "Do whatever you want" for employees. It's (reasonably so) somewhere in between.

OK, define exactly where that line is and explain why it is so.

Color or creed or religion or sex are categorized as irrelevant to the hiring practices providing the job can be done,

That is absolutely not true. There are plenty of jobs that only men are suited for, and there are jobs in which a person of a certain race is not suited for.

and store policies for day to day business are within the rights of the business itself.

What does that mean???

Oh, and as long as Jesse Jackson remains off Macy's property, he can protest to his heart's content. If he breaks the law though, he should be held accountable.

He should be pushed in front of an oncoming bus.......

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by BillyBob

No, I'm trying to figure out where you draw the line of freedom a private business has.

That line moves as society progresses. Once, it was perfectly legal for companies to discriminate based on gender and color. Now it is not.

I think this discussion will boil down to a fundamental difference between both you and Ninevah and I. You two are very absolutist in your thinking. As a rationalist, I try to recognize that there is an ebb and flow to social and political constructs -- I believe in evolution, because we are surrounded by a world where things change in order to grow and live. But neither of your posts have that as an underlying current. It's dogma al the way-- the "unchanging word" mentality. So, given that, I'll answer as best I can.

But we will never agree it seems, unless I decide to cross over into unyeilding dogma, or you accept that change=life.

I am talking about the freedom a private company has to operate as it sees fit without any governmental intrusion.

Absolute freedom = anarchy. I'm not an anarchist.

What laws protect Christians?

all the laws of the land. What the laws also do is protect those who are not Christian. sometimes there's a clash. Most of the time, majority holds sway. sometimes, minority needs addressing. The majority holding sway absolutely is a dictatorship. Pretty simple logic, Billybob, as bitter a pill as it may be to swallow.

Business is inherently unfair[/i], that's the nature of it. We don't need a government regulating 'fairness', that defeats the whole point of free enterprise.

No, buisiness is inherently competitive. It's unfair when it's run by the unethical. Where do you come down? competitive, or unethical?

Why not??????

Because there are unethical people in the world and absolute freedom is anarchy. You'll be reading the word "absolute" a lot in this post I think.

How do you determine what policies are reasonable and which are not?

By recognizing how society changes and accepting that society does change. Absolutists cannot move, they cannot evolve, and thus they die. Same here. A business that would refuse to move with the times will incur the disdain of the populace and die. Once, tobacco companies could lie and cheat and encourage millions to smoke.

Guess what happened to them?

Can they also hire people based on race and gender?

There may be some very narrow areas where there would be reasons why they could not, but I can only think of a few minor ones.

There are always exceptions. I just watched "Ray" tonight for example. Jamie Foxx did a great job. He was hired for a numbe rof reaosns, one of which is, he is black. Specifically because he is black. This is one of those exceptions. Insisitng a white man or an Asian play Ray for reasons of equality is unreasonable.

It most certainly does! Either a private company has freedom or it doesn't.

Nonsene. I'm surprised at you. Freedom without law is anarchy and you know it. Stop playing the fool, absolutist-- your posts speak better of you than this.

Why not????

Because a person's religion is irrelevant to the job they will do. A Satanist can play Santa Claus for instance. A Jew can be a janitor or a salesperson. Pretty straightforward, unless you're an absolutist.

I agree, as a private company, they can dictae many policies to their employees. They can dictate hair length, clean shaveness, dress code, any manner of things.

But not things such as gender, race, or religion, except in rare exceptions.

I am more interested in seeing where you draw the line between the freedom a private company posseses and where that freedom ends. [/quote]As noted, that line moves. A black woman CEO of Macy's in 1953 was effectively impossible. The same is not the case today. Why? Because society fluctuates and freedoms move and change for everyone but the absolutist (well, it does for them as well but they can;t see it).

By the way, this is why I champion government neutrality. It's precisely the fact that tomorrow's majority may not be what it is today is what is the cornerstone of this argument. Today, in France, there are active efforts underway to undercut Islamic influence on their culture. Why? Because the majority changes.

Kep religion out of government, and you're all safe. Drag it in, and you better hope your belief remains the majority because you've now opened the door to all beliefs holding sway if they should become the majoirty. Once again, it's a very obvious, very simply argument.

Yep, they certainly do. And they also had the right to not hire you in thr first place based on any number of criteria. They also have the right to fire you for any reason or no reason at all. They can simply say, "Your fired, you have 3 minutes to pack your things and get off our property" and never give you a reason why.

In some instances but not all. There are legal recourses open to any employee.

OK, define exactly where that line is and explain why it is so.

It depends. There is no "exacltly". you're being absolutist, hence, foolish.

That is absolutely not true. There are plenty of jobs that only men are suited for, and there are jobs in which a person of a certain race is not suited for.

Sure, I have said there are exceptions. I noted using a black guy to0 play a famous black person. It's an exception.

But you seem to have totaly ignored my whole senence, Billybob. Look at it again:

Color or creed or religion or sex are categorized as irrelevant to the hiring practices providing the job can be done,

What part of the bolded section don't you get? Sheesh, it's right there in front of you. Or are you arguing simply to argue?

What does that mean???

It means stores can set dress codes and grooming standards and what employees are permitted to say, etc. It doesn;t mean a store can insist everyone must pray to Mecca 5 times a day.

Simple stuff. I'm rather surprised at you.

He should be pushed in front of an oncoming bus.......

Oh, I forgot-- you're a Christian. Now I'm not surprised at all.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by JayHoover

Clever.

Now that your insult is out of the way, are you able to address the issues?

Why should I? You're not worth my time, Jay. You've shown that already.

 

[On Fire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Originally posted by BillyBob

I don't know any Christian who supports the US becoming a theocracy. However, this country was founded on Christian morals and it's laws reflect that. [I imagine that most Muslims would recognize those same original morals, by the way.] But the current political climate among liberals is to shun morality by claiming that it's basis is religious and therefor innapropriate. By doing so, they are inadvertently and even purposefully discriminating against Christians.

:up: :bannana: :up: :bannana: :up: :bannana: :up:

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Why should I? You're not worth my time, Jay. You've shown that already.

Then get lost...

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by JayHoover

That line moves as society progresses.

Uh oh, first sentance into a post and he uses the word progresses, I can already see where this is headed.

Once, it was perfectly legal for companies to discriminate based on gender and color. Now it is not.

And why is it not legal? I discriminate. I only hire white guys to work for me and there's nothing you or the government can do about it! :banana:

I think this discussion will boil down to a fundamental difference between both you and Ninevah and I. You two are very absolutist in your thinking.

I absolutely support freedom.

As a rationalist, I try to recognize that there is an ebb and flow to social and political constructs -- I believe in evolution, because we are surrounded by a world where things change in order to grow and live. But neither of your posts have that as an underlying current.

There is no need for freedom to evolve backward, as you are suggesting! :doh:

It's dogma al the way-- the "unchanging word" mentality.

Dogma, what dogma?

So, given that, I'll answer as best I can.

My, aren't you generous?

But we will never agree it seems, unless I decide to cross over into unyeilding dogma, or you accept that change=life.

What dogma?

Absolute freedom = anarchy. I'm not an anarchist.

You are not a proponent of freedom, either.

all the laws of the land.

You missed the point entirely.

No, buisiness is inherently competitive. It's unfair when it's run by the unethical.

Wow, do YOU have a lot to learn about business! There is nothing unethical about putting your competitor at an 'unfair' disadvantage.

Where do you come down? competitive, or unethical?

I am entirely ethical in my business practices, but I certainly have no problem realizing that the world isn't fair.

Because there are unethical people in the world and absolute freedom is anarchy.

Unethical people don't pay much attention to laws in the first place. :doh:

You'll be reading the word "absolute" a lot in this post I think.

I'm absolutely sure of it.

By recognizing how society changes and accepting that society does change. Absolutists cannot move, they cannot evolve, and thus they die. Same here. A business that would refuse to move with the times will incur the disdain of the populace and die.

What are you talking about. [Don't let it be said I didn't give you plenty of rope to hang yourself with.]

Once, tobacco companies could lie and cheat and encourage millions to smoke.

Guess what happened to them?

They continue to make billions of dollars a year. :greedy:

There may be some very narrow areas where there would be reasons why they could not, but I can only think of a few minor ones.

There are always exceptions. I just watched "Ray" tonight for example. Jamie Foxx did a great job. He was hired for a numbe rof reaosns, one of which is, he is black. Specifically because he is black. This is one of those exceptions. Insisitng a white man or an Asian play Ray for reasons of equality is unreasonable.

Tell that to the guy who sued 'Hooters' for not hiring him.

Because a person's religion is irrelevant to the job they will do. A Satanist can play Santa Claus for instance. A Jew can be a janitor or a salesperson. Pretty straightforward, unless you're an absolutist.

I mentioned that I only hire white guys, did I mention that I only hire white guys who are Christians?

But not things such as gender, race, or religion, except in rare exceptions.

Says who? If a company owner is black, he has the right to hire only black men. If a Law firm is owned by a Jew, he has the right to hire only Jewish Lawyers and hot Jewish secretaries [if he can find any]. If a General Contractor is a white Christian male, he has the right to hire only white Christian males if he chooses. [and a hot Jewish secretary if there are any left]. And so on. And you know what? Theree is [here's your favorite word] ABSOLTELY nothing wrong with it and there is [here it is again] ABSOLUTELY nothing the government can do about it! :banana:

*snip*

It depends. There is no "exacltly". you're being absolutist, hence, foolish.

And you are being a condescending asss. Read my lips: CleverDan

But you seem to have totaly ignored my whole senence, Billybob. Look at it again:

Color or creed or religion or sex are categorized as irrelevant to the hiring practices providing the job can be done,

And you happen to be completely wrong. I bet it's something you have grown used to.

What part of the bolded section don't you get? Sheesh, it's right there in front of you. Or are you arguing simply to argue?

I am arguing because you happen to be :sozo: WRONG!

It means stores can set dress codes and grooming standards and what employees are permitted to say, etc. It doesn;t mean a store can insist everyone must pray to Mecca 5 times a day.

Sure they can! They can set that standard at the job interview, if you don't like it, find a different job.

Simple stuff. I'm rather surprised at you.

Surprised at what, that I shot holes through your entire socialistic premise? That's my job! :Grizzly: :stupidcommie:

Oh, I forgot-- you're a Christian. Now I'm not surprised at all.

Jackson also claims to be a Christian... :think: :mrt:

 

[JayHoover]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Originally posted by Nineveh

"Congress shall make no law..." has been taken waaaay out of context.

Really? Thankfully, we have Nineveh here to correct us all. Now we can get rid of the supreme court and save all that expense!

Follow along and you won't have to ask so often

It's not easy to follow along babbling. Make an effort to make sense and that will solve the problem.

How many times are you going to say the same thing? You and I just aren't going to agree here. Firstly, because I seldom hear the religious bent of a politician, secondly, I seldom believe anything thay say. Most people I know think politicians seldom tell the truth. It's been that way for as long as I can remember.

Well, they all raced out to scream "under god" a little while back. they all do seem to say "And may god bless america" in every speech. what we know is this:

They aren't atheists, they are definitely theists.

Despite being theists, they rarely tell the truth.

That tells us a lot, doesn't it?

If they say/i] they are Christians but are notorious for lying...... you figure it out.

I have. They're modern Christians.

Except you missed one great bit thing here.

It has nothing to do with "interpretation". If Christ says one thing and someone else is saying different, it's not about interpretation whether they are speaking in His Name or not.

What has Christ actually said to you? Do you mean what you've read Christ was said to have said to others 2000 years ago? If so--

--you read it or were told it and it therefore by definition it was interpreted. Jeez, welcome to Perception 101.

Look it up, try Google: "witch, Georgia, prayer" might get it for ya.

I did. On the first page, this was the only reference to al three words:

07/22/97 Committee on the Judiciary - McDonald Statement... For example, look at the issue of prayer in public schools. ... mean that a town could erect a statue "recognizing" a pagan sun god or a witch goddess, ...
judiciary.house.gov/legacy/22320.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

I'm not reall going to wade through 161,000 references to that combination of words, all of which are extremely common.

Please cite a direct reference.

No, that's what happened. One witch tried to use the courts to force her will on everyone else. So it comes down to "freedom of religion, if the witches don't get offended".

This seems like a very isolated incident. I don't really see waves of witches hobbling the free expression of Christianity anywhere.

If anyone wants to start their day with prayer, what's your problem? It's their right.

100% agree. Not an issue. Simply do not create a law that says I have to. That's all I'm saying and all I've said.

What's your problem with that?

Does not mean CHECK YOUR RELIGION AT THE DOOR.

Never said it did. Try addressing what I've said, not what you imagine I've said.

Did you just miss all this or are you not following along?

Your posts are not particular relevant, consistent, or cogent.

No one is instisting anything. The ACLU has tried to stiffle some. Along with the pullik skool this last Christmas. But I haven't heard where Christians are mandating anyone do anything.

Not successfully, not yet. But that its what they are trying to do. They want prayer back in school, and they want Creationism taught in science class. Not all Christians of course, just that small minority that wants to control America. The ones we're allowing to take control.

In the case of GA it was a witch making demands. With public school and prayer it was an atheist. (I'm waiting to see your evidence to change my opinion on this point)

Sure. Here you go: Schemmp was a Unitarian. O'Hair's case vs Curtlett was folded into it as a secondary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

Sorry to burst your bubble that hordes of witches and atheists are trying to stop you from personally being Christian

It's not breaking the law to offend a pagan with one's religious practices. Even if one is an elected official.

Nope, it's not. Your point?

Huh? Oppression of Christians by Christians because the US Congress has always opened with prayer?

Well, Christians are the ones in power. You claim the government is out to stifle Christianity. Since Christians are the ones in power, it would have to be them doing this oprression you've claimed. I know it can't be atheists. Atheists can't get elected worth a damn.

How are they being hypocrites?

By not upholding the Constitution. Which of course, you think is "Christian ordained" (that's why it mentions Jesus so often) :darwinism:

You might feel that way, but the ones who hammered out the Constitution and Bill of Rights were the first to offer the prayers in the newly formed Congress.

And left all references to Jesus Christ OUT of the document. On purpose. :darwinism:

LOL

It was a majority of Christians who founded this country and it's documents. Yes, I have done the homework to back up the statement..

Read Paine and Jefferson to begin with. Follow up with Franklin. As I've noted, there were a range of different beliefs that went into this country's founding and Deism was just as strong as Christianity. But I know it's does little good to argue this point. You'll read direct commentary by these men and because they may have said, "Thank god!" once somewhere you think that means they are all Pat Robertson Christians.

It's pagans who refuse to allow the freedom of worship, like the witch and the atheist I've already sited a few times. It's pagans who want people to check their faith at the door to hold office. The founders never had that in mind, nor practiced such a thing.

LOL< you're funny. You can only cite the same two instances over and over, yet this becomes "pagans who refuse to allow freedom of religion!"

LOL, very entertaining.

Too bad you are over 200 years too late to make your opinion known to the people who did want it that way.

Yes. We can tell they wanted Christianity revered in this country by their constant referencing of Jesus Christ and the bible inthe core documents. Why, here's a great example of it right here:

Article VI of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Yeah, they were Christian :darwinism:

NO ONE IS FORCING IT. Are you just thick or don't you get that yet?

Not yet. They are trying.

Congress has been operating longer than both of us combined. I'm sorry you have a problem with how they do business.

Excuse me. Aren't you the one who insists they all lie?

sorry you have a problem with how they do business.

This is what I mean by your inability to mount a consistent argument. On the one hand, they all lie. On the other hand, you attack me --irrelevantly I might add-- because you think I am criticizing the way they do business.

So either A. Run for office and try to change it or B. Because it obviously bothers you so badly, don't run for office so you won't be offended.

Hunh?

It's pagans who use the court to force their will on the people IE: Roy Moore. Homo "marriage. Abortion. To name just a few.

In numerous states gay marriage was struck down. The electorate decided this. Anti-Abortion desires is the aim of a minority.

By the way, being in the majority doesn't guarantee ethical righteousness.

The people are the folks in charge, remember? If that's what they want, why are you so dead set against people running their own towns as they see fit?

Why are you for it? Those in charge are the politicians and they'll all "liars" remember?

I'm not against them running their own towns as they see fit. I'm against them using the government-- even the local one -- to make some claim of favoritism for one religion over another. This is to protect them as wel. They can still worship as freely as they want, they just need to avoid codifying it.

You don't (won't) see the difference between the two, but there is assuredly so a difference.

I've never seen anyone pray to a manger scene.

People worship Jesus, even as a baby in a straw cradle.

You have not been following along. Either that, or you are just being thick cuz it fun.

Right. You not following along couldn't possibly be your fault, so sorry LOL

I'm not following along your inconsistent babblings.

If you don't like being called a whiner, quit whining.

Hmm, I thought this was a debate forum. You know, where opposing ideas get bandied about. I didn't realize that this was "WhinerLand".

Seems like all anyone does here is whine-- including you in this post, which you started as its own thread.

You have no clue what I believe because you are to busy making it up to argue against. It helps to try to at least read what's written and follow along.

I only reply to your cmmentary. That's what you portray, that's what I perceive you believe.

I have not witnessed the Congress trying to make any laws esablishing a religion. I have witnessed pagans getitng "offended" and using the courts to force their wills, though.

They are not permitted to make laws establishing religion, but they did so anyway. Like In God We Trust and Under God adds religion to otherwise secular entities (this was done in the 1950's). It was wrong, and there are efforts to turn it back to what the it should be. Now, those who are trying to fix what Christians broke in the 1950s are accused of being "pagans who are offended". Yeah, I'm pretty ofended that this nation was hijacked by Christiansin the 1950s and they changed our founding motto to a religious one. It was wrong and a mistake, and should be corrected.

And no, I don't agree people should have to check their faith at the door when they take a job... deja vu...

Read my reply to Billybob and you'll see I favor a religious conviction as irrelevant to one's job.

I haven't demanded anything from anyone. You've been the one whining and crying about the state you see things in, not me. I think folks have a right to pray, even when a witch gets offended. I think folks have a right to display religious items in their towns as they see fit, even f it offends the ACLU.

They do. They cannot have it mandated through government agencies however.

That's how simple this is. But... you don't (won't) see it.

I have to go. I'm editing the rest of this and will try to reply later. Busy day.

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Originally posted by JayHoover

Really? Thankfully, we have Nineveh here to correct us all. Now we can get rid of the supreme court and save all that expense!

It's really simple:

If Congress isn't establishing a law... They aren't violating the Bill of Rights.

IE: Roy Moore isn't congress, nor was he establishing a religion. An ACLU lawyer was "offended". BIG difference. A city council isn't congress and they aren't establishing a religion. They offered a prayer that offended a witch. BIG difference. Kid aren't congress and they weren't establishing a religion. They brought red and green napkins to public school. BIG difference.

It's not easy to follow along babbling.

Ok, if you can't do two things at once, quit babbling, and maybe you could focus on following along

Make an effort to make sense and that will solve the problem.

Seriously, unless you got to make the rules up, I doubt you will ever solve to your satisfaction what you lable as "problems".

Well, they all raced out to scream "under god" a little while back. they all do seem to say "And may god bless america" in every speech. what we know is this:

They aren't atheists, they are definitely theists.

Despite being theists, they rarely tell the truth.

That tells us a lot, doesn't it?

I have. They're modern Christians.

LOL

That tells me you flunked logic class.

What has Christ actually said to you? Do you mean what you've read Christ was said to have said to others 2000 years ago? If so--

--you read it or were told it and it therefore by definition it was interpreted. Jeez, welcome to Perception 101.

I tend to take that many eyewitnesses' word for it. You don't have to... I'm not congress and I'm not establishing a religion...

I did. On the first page, this was the only reference to al three words:

07/22/97 Committee on the Judiciary - McDonald Statement... For example, look at the issue of prayer in public schools. ... mean that a town could erect a statue "recognizing" a pagan sun god or a witch goddess, ...
judiciary.house.gov/legacy/22320.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

I'm not reall going to wade through 161,000 references to that combination of words, all of which are extremely common.

Please cite a direct reference.

Ok, try using the search feature here at TOL, I know someone posted it. Unless it's been deleted.

This seems like a very isolated incident. I don't really see waves of witches hobbling the free expression of Christianity anywhere.

No one said it was limited to only witches being offended. ..except you

100% agree. Not an issue. Simply do not create a law that says I have to. That's all I'm saying and all I've said.

Ok, and I've been saying different? No. So why do you keep arguing?

What's your problem with that?

:doh:

The only prob I have with you so far, is you don't seem to understand who is involved in the first amendment.

Never said it did. Try addressing what I've said, not what you imagine I've said.

Careful pointing fingers, gus ...

Your posts are not particular relevant, consistent, or cogent.

... you wind up with 3 pointing back at you

Not successfully, not yet. But that its what they are trying to do. They want prayer back in school, and they want Creationism taught in science class. Not all Christians of course, just that small minority that wants to control America. The ones we're allowing to take control.

:shocked:

You mean "ignorant parents" want more than evo taught in biology class so their kids might have to think? HORRORS!

And PRAYING?! In a publically funded school?! THE SKY IS FALLING!

You sound a little paranoid.

Sure. Here you go: Schemmp was a Unitarian. O'Hair's case vs Curtlett was folded into it as a secondary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

Schemmp was a unitarian. Hit the link, the first sentence defines them outside of Christianity. (and that's wikipedia doing the defining for you, not me)

Schemmp's thing was Bible reading not prayer. O'Hare's thing was Bible reading and prayer.

Sorry to burst your bubble that hordes of witches and atheists are trying to stop you from personally being Christian

I never said that

I said, "pagans are trying to erase God from the public square." So thanks for pointing out Schemmp. I'll add that to the list

Nope, it's not. Your point?

Even the US Congess can open with a prayer.

Well, Christians are the ones in power.

Keep repeating it, maybe you can make it true if you say it enough

You claim the government is out to stifle Christianity.

No. What I said.... again .... is that pagans are trying to remove God from public. That's what I said to Gerald on the other thread. That's what I've said, here... again.

Since Christians are the ones in power, it would have to be them doing this oprression you've claimed.

You calim a majority are Christians, you claim it's oppression. I believe neither, personally.

I know it can't be atheists. Atheists can't get elected worth a damn.

Sorry bout your luck, just say you are a Christian, right before you promise a tax cut ....

By not upholding the Constitution. Which of course, you think is "Christian ordained" (that's why it mentions Jesus so often) :darwinism:

Ok.. would you please site where the Congress has established a religion? Curtailed the free excersize of religion? Forced anyone to not/partake in a religion?

And left all references to Jesus Christ OUT of the document. On purpose. :darwinism:

Even the 2-6 deists believed in a god.

Read Paine and Jefferson to begin with. Follow up with Franklin. As I've noted, there were a range of different beliefs that went into this country's founding and Deism was just as strong as Christianity.

Concerning the MayFlower Compact, The Constitutional Convention, The Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence:

There were 2 staunch diests.
4 deists that switched to something else later in life.
vs
102 who claimed some form of Christian denom.

There were 62 I could find absolutely no info on, so I'll even give you those plus the 3 catholics. And with all that, you are still wrong.

But I know it's does little good to argue this point. You'll read direct commentary by these men and because they may have said, "Thank god!" once somewhere you think that means they are all Pat Robertson Christians.

Actually I did the research after the last rube said, "Most of the Founders were deist"

LOL< you're funny. You can only cite the same two instances over and over, yet this becomes "pagans who refuse to allow freedom of religion!"

LOL, very entertaining.

Those are the two that popped into my head. Recall? I said I could name more, but it wouldn't matter. You've already proven it wouldn't because catty's link provided a good deal more. You said, basically, you don't agree what they did was right and you would fight against it.

I still don't see how though, you are all for public places being devoid of God.

Yes. We can tell they wanted Christianity revered in this country by their constant referencing of Jesus Christ and the bible inthe core documents. Why, here's a great example of it right here:

Article VI of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Yeah, they were Christian :darwinism:

Do you know why a denomoination wasn't established by the federal government?

Anyway... the part you highlighted means even if someone is a Chriatian they can hold public office without checking their faith at the door

Not yet. They are trying.

Paranoid.

Excuse me. Aren't you the one who insists they all lie?

What does that have to do with the fact Congress is opened with prayer?

sorry you have a problem with how they do business.

Ya got me there.... I think they waste too much of my money....

This is what I mean by your inability to mount a consistent argument. On the one hand, they all lie.

I have yet to meet another human, besides you, who trusts politicians.

On the other hand, you attack me

Attack you? Oh gee. Is your pagan skin really so thin you think a post on an internet forum is an attack? You really should get help for your paraniod delusions.

--irrelevantly I might add-- because you think I am criticizing the way they do business.

You keep insisting Congress is establishing religions. I dunno why, I haven't seen it.

In numerous states gay marriage was struck down. The electorate decided this. Anti-Abortion desires is the aim of a minority.

Abortion was made law of the land by SCotUS fiat in 1973. So you must mean a majority of SCotUS judges.

Homo "unions" are still being faught across America.

By the way, being in the majority doesn't guarantee ethical righteousness.

Amen.

Why are you for it? Those in charge are the politicians and they'll all "liars" remember?

I didn't say "all", but fantasizing about what I said helps you make your points... so....

I am for the people being free to excersize their faith.

I'm not against them running their own towns as they see fit. I'm against them using the government-- even the local one -- to make some claim of favoritism for one religion over another. This is to protect them as wel. They can still worship as freely as they want, they just need to avoid codifying it.

"I'm not against them running their own towns as they see fit...." EXCEPT the people using their collective property. Thanks, but the town of 500 who bought the displays and wanted them there don't want your protection, they want thier freedom.

You don't (won't) see the difference between the two, but there is assuredly so a difference.

I see a difference because I want the people to be free, not "protected" from themselves via the courts ala ACLU.

People worship Jesus, even as a baby in a straw cradle.

People who follow Christ worship Christ, not a plaster cast of an infant. Are you really that thick?

Hmm, I thought this was a debate forum. You know, where opposing ideas get bandied about. I didn't realize that this was "WhinerLand".

It's not, so .... when in Rome....

Seems like all anyone does here is whine-- including you in this post, which you started as its own thread.

I started this thread because all this doesn't belong in dave's thread. Are you whining about it?

I only reply to your cmmentary. That's what you portray, that's what I perceive you believe.

Like people worship plaster infants? Your perception is off.

They are not permitted to make laws establishing religion, but they did so anyway. Like In God We Trust and Under God adds religion to otherwise secular entities (this was done in the 1950's).

The word "God" is not establishing a religion. If you insist that it is... name it.

It was wrong, and there are efforts to turn it back to what the it should be.

If we went back to the foundings, you would really be whining. You wouldn't like it when the congress took a week off to visit every church they could find so the bickering would cease and business could be taken care of. (That happened during the Constitutional Convention, at Ben's request)

It seems you just wanna go back a few decades and make like this nation was something it wasn't. The further back you want to go, the more God you will find in the public square.

Now, those who are trying to fix what Christians broke in the 1950s are accused of being "pagans who are offended". Yeah, I'm pretty ofended that this nation was hijacked by Christiansin the 1950s and they changed our founding motto to a religious one. It was wrong and a mistake, and should be corrected.

This nation was founded by Christians. As evidenced above. What you want is for the ground pagans have made to be regained where it's been lost. Rather, I don't see where any of that ground has been lost at all. We still murder babies and censor napkin colors.

Read my reply to Billybob and you'll see I favor a religious conviction as irrelevant to one's job.

Good for you. But others may not.

They do. They cannot have it mandated through government agencies however.

Yet it takes a court to disallow people from doing as they please in their own towns.

That's how simple this is. But... you don't (won't) see it.

Rather, I'd just a soon not have your "protection", I'll take my liberty.

 

[cattyfan]

Re: biology classes...I will restate something I said earlier: the movement to teach something along with (not instead of) evolution is growing. Both Kansas and Missouri now have legislators who are voicing a desire for schools to expand what knowledge they offer, instead of only teaching one theory.


Why are so-called liberals against offering more information instead of severely limiting education? Don't they believe children should be exposed to more than one viewpoint? That sure is the line they shout when it comes to sex-ed..."They can't just teach abstinence...they have to represent all sides, including gays."

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by cattyfan

Re: biology classes...I will restate something I said earlier: the movement to teach something along with (not instead of) evolution is growing. Both Kansas and Missouri now have legislators who are voicing a desire for schools to expand what knowledge they offer, instead of only teaching one theory.

In PA the ACLU was saying it was because ID was about God. Their lawsuit has been put on hold however because one of the ACLU lawyers finally shut up long enough to look over what ID actually says. So we'll see how that turns out over the summer most likely....

Why are so-called liberals against offering more information instead of severely limiting education? Don't they believe children should be exposed to more than one viewpoint? That sure is the line they shout when it comes to sex-ed..."They can't just teach abstinence...they have to represent all sides, including gays."

That is an awsome point catty :thumb:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by JayHoover

I certainly can.

You are missing the point however.

The point is not whether I personally am offended or not.

Are you sure about that?

In the greater argument, that's a drop in the ocean. The whole point of free speech in fact is to protect the airing of views that do offend us (non-offensive speech needs no protection).

No, I reject the idea that there is a goverment entity favoring any religion.

I suppose you think only atheists should be allowed to hold office then?

Just mentioning "God" for example violates some religions who believe you cannot utter the word "God" (or spell it out).

So?

Neutrality. Keep saying it over and over until it sinks in: Neutrality. That's the most beneficial to all concerned. that means the guy next to me can bow his head in prayer, and I don't have to.

You didn't have to in the scenario mentioned earlier. What's the difference?

I don't have to be put into a position of "refusing to participate",

What do you call it when everybody else is praying and you're not?

and you aren't in a position to not be allowed to pray.

I've never been in that position.

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Why should I? You're not worth my time, Jay. You've shown that already.

Ok, so no.

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by JayHoover

Move along, nothing to see here.

Except me kicking your asss. :box:

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Are you sure about that?

Yes. I'm consistent about it. It doesn't bother me at all.

I suppose you think only atheists should be allowed to hold office then?

Nope. The Cosntitution cites no religious test for office because it's irrelevant. I'll stick to the Constitution since it works pretty well.

So?

A needle pulling thread.

You didn't have to in the scenario mentioned earlier. What's the difference?

Mandated prayers are government intrusion. It puts me in the position where I have to choose to participate or not. You choosing to pray until you drop from exhaustion is your own choice and leaves me and the government out of it. It's very simple.

What do you call it when everybody else is praying and you're not?

Mandated prayers are government intrusion. It puts me in the position where I have to choose to participate or not. You choosing to pray until you drop from exhaustion is your own choice and leaves me and the government out of it. It's very simple.

I've never been in that position.

That's right. Because you live in a free country. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Except me kicking your asss. :box:

You couldn't kick my a$$ even if you had a leg to stand on, which you don't.

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by JayHoover

You couldn't kick my a$$ even if you had a leg to stand on, which you don't.

Go back and read the post I wrote that you avoided responding to. :chuckle:

:box:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by JayHoover

Yes. I'm consistent about it.

I'll ask you once more-- are you sure about that?

It doesn't bother me at all.

It doesn't? Earlier you posted:

Originally posted by JayHoover
If, however, a team captain stood up, went to a microphone, and instructed the stadium's populace to bow their heads to recite a prayer led by that person, then I would have a huge complaint.

That doesn't sound very consistent to me...

Nope. The Cosntitution cites no religious test for office because it's irrelevant. I'll stick to the Constitution since it works pretty well.

Well, I'm glad you have no problems with people of faith holding office.

A needle pulling thread.

Okay, I guess you didn't have a point to make there.

Mandated prayers are government intrusion.

When did the government mandate prayers?

It puts me in the position where I have to choose to participate or not.

You've already chosen not to participate.

You choosing to pray until you drop from exhaustion is your own choice and leaves me and the government out of it. It's very simple.

Yeah. Just like you choosing not to pray is your own choice, leaving me and the government out of it.

That's right. Because you live in a free country. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

I'm not trying to take away anybody's freedoms.

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Uh oh, first sentance into a post and he uses the word progresses, I can already see where this is headed.

Yes, progress -- it's essential for life.

And why is it not legal? I discriminate. I only hire white guys to work for me and there's nothing you or the government can do about it! :banana:

I'll address this when you reply to the comment about ethics.

I absolutely support freedom.

That's not the same as having absolute freedom. Without law, utter, absolute freedom is anarchy.

There is no need for freedom to evolve backward, as you are suggesting! :doh:

Really? Then I geuss you have no desire to see Roe v Wade overturned. After all, that was a freedom gained in the 70's and according to you-- there's no need for freedom to "evolve backward".

Dogma, what dogma?

#2:

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

My, aren't you generous?

Yes. In a discussion, I try to answer the best I can. What do you do? How generous are you?

What dogma?

Ibid.

You are not a proponent of freedom, either.

Yes, I am.

You missed the point entirely.

No, I didn't. Christians are protected equally under the law. When Moslems insist that schools stop for 5 prayers to Mecca, then they will be stopped as well. It's not just Christians, though Christians are the ones trying to mandate these things.

Wow, do YOU have a lot to learn about business! There is nothing unethical about putting your competitor at an 'unfair' disadvantage.

Depends. What do you mean by "unfair"? That covers a lot fo ground, doesn't it? Maybe "unfair" means paying for all the top talent. Or maybe it means corporate espionage and stealing a competitor's proprietary assets.

As someone who discrimnates, your white's only policy is unfair in the unethical sense, unless you have a real compelling reason. I don't know what uyou business is, but I'm hard-pressed to see what business you can have that requires a racial discrinimation. Care to share?

I am entirely ethical in my business practices, but I certainly have no problem realizing that the world isn't fair.

See above.

Why discriminate racially? Without a real compelling reason, it's pretty unethical.

Unethical people don't pay much attention to laws in the first place. :doh:

Which is why we do not have absolute freedom and need laws. Jeez.

What are you talking about. [Don't let it be said I didn't give you plenty of rope to hang yourself with.]

No need to expplain it again. It's self-evident.

They continue to make billions of dollars a year. :greedy:

They were deeply slapped.

Tell that to the guy who sued 'Hooters' for not hiring him.

"That guy" "A witch" "An atheist". These are rare examples. There should always be tests of social order, anything worth keeping needs to display a consistency and a strength to withstand challenges.

I mentioned that I only hire white guys, did I mention that I only hire white guys who are Christians?

Nope. I imagine you have a very clever screening process.

Says who? If a company owner is black, he has the right to hire only black men. If a Law firm is owned by a Jew, he has the right to hire only Jewish Lawyers and hot Jewish secretaries [if he can find any]. If a General Contractor is a white Christian male, he has the right to hire only white Christian males if he chooses. [and a hot Jewish secretary if there are any left]. And so on. And you know what? Theree is [here's your favorite word] ABSOLTELY nothing wrong with it and there is [here it is again] ABSOLUTELY nothing the government can do about it! :banana:

I think you live in another USA than I do.

Precisely how open are you about you "I can do whatever the hell I want" program?

Just curious.

And you are being a condescending asss. Read my lips: CleverDan

Hmmm. Methinks pot is speaking loudly to kettle.

And you happen to be completely wrong. I bet it's something you have grown used to.

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

I am arguing because you happen to be :sozo: WRONG!

Good. Please let us know your hiring practices. Do you openly tell all applicants: "You must be white male and Christian to work here".

Sure they can! They can set that standard at the job interview, if you don't like it, find a different job.

Correct. But their race and religion are irrelevant and usually (but not always) their gender is irrelevant as well.

Surprised at what, that I shot holes through your entire socialistic premise? That's my job! :Grizzly: :stupidcommie:

Do you publically announce you will only hire white male Christians? Do your hiring ads say, "Females, non-Christians, and non-Caucasians need not apply"?

Jackson also claims to be a Christian... :think: :mrt:

Yes, but according to Nineveh, they / he/ she / those are pagans."

What fun games you guys all play.

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by JayHoover
I'll address this when you reply to the comment about ethics.

What comment?

That's not the same as having absolute freedom. Without law, utter, absolute freedom is anarchy.

Nobody is suggesting that there be no laws.

#2:

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

I know what dogma means, I want to know exactly which dogma you claim I am clinging to?

As someone who discrimnates, your white's only policy is unfair in the unethical sense,

How is it unfair? If I choose to run my business that way, it would be unfair for the government to dictate I run it otherwise.

unless you have a real compelling reason.

I have quite a few.

I don't know what uyou business is, but I'm hard-pressed to see what business you can have that requires a racial discrinimation. Care to share?

Sure. I'm a contractor.

Why discriminate racially? Without a real compelling reason, it's pretty unethical.

I have plenty of reasons.

They were deeply slapped.

It didn't phase them.

I think you live in another USA than I do.

Ah, the old '2 Americas' shtick. It will work for you about as well as it worked for Kerry/Edwards.

Precisely how open are you about you "I can do whatever the hell I want" program?

I told you, didn't I?

Good. Please let us know your hiring practices. Do you openly tell all applicants: "You must be white male and Christian to work here".

Unless they are white Christian males, they never even get to that point of the discussion.

Correct. But their race and religion are irrelevant and usually (but not always) their gender is irrelevant as well.

They may be irrelevant to you, but they are not irrelevant everyone.

Do you publically announce you will only hire white male Christians? Do your hiring ads say, "Females, non-Christians, and non-Caucasians need not apply"?

I have never taken out an ad looking for employees, but it would save me and the applicants a lot of time if I took out an ad like that because I am very strict about who works for me. And guess what??? I have the RIGHT to be!