Darth Tater Posted June 27, 2002 Share Posted June 27, 2002 What if your daughter was on the school soccer team? How would she play with the burqa on? Depends, is the field enclosed? And how would her school pictures work after that? No problem if the photographer is female, the picture is taken in the women's quarter in your home and that picture is ONLY displayed in those quarters. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 27, 2002 Share Posted June 27, 2002 Originally posted by Art Jack, When you indicate that people of faith should practice their faith solely in the quiet of their homes it is an oppressive and wholly fascist view of how things operate. You said what you said. My belief that people of faith, even with my belief that they are a bunch of loons, have a right to the free exercise of religion is not a facist tendency. Art, I never said people of faith should practice their faith SOLELY in the quiet of their homes. I just stated that as an option. Are you against letting people pray inside their own homes? As long as they don't block my passage to get my coffee they can feel free to pray in the parking lot of 7-11 for all I care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted June 27, 2002 Share Posted June 27, 2002 Originally posted by JackC Art, Are you against letting people pray inside their own homes? Art doesn't need me to stick up for him, but I think that question is ludicrous... He has never even hinted at anything along those lines. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 Dafunky1, Yes that question is ludicrous. Almost as ludicrous as Art saying I said Christians should be forced to only practice religion in their homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 The difference, Jack, is you said Christians can pray and say the Pledge in their homes rather than disturbing your sensibilities otherwise. I've maintained that Christians, though I disagree with their beliefs, be encouraged and allowed to express their beliefs. So, while your thought was ludicrous, mine came from your own intolerance of others and the suggestion that perhaps people of faith should express that faith behind closed doors as a solution. Your bigotry against those who believe is hateful and clear. My distaste for religion is also clear, but, it's not my view that we should simply eradicate all religious expression in public. That seems to be where you'd prefer to head to "solve" the Pledge issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 Art, I do not have a problem with Christians practicing their faith. I support the tax exempt status for churches. I don't have a problem with a student talking about his or her religious beliefs at their graduation. I just think there is a line they we should not let get crossed. When crossed it hurts our society. I bet some of the conservatives here (you know who they are) would scream to high heaven if some school had their own POA which said one nation under Allah, but kids could opt out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 Again, Jack, Allah is a word for God. If a state had such a belief system in place it could absolutely speak that name in place of another. It can't write over the federal Pledge, but, it could absolutely recognize the populations views in any fashion it wished, as long as it didn't intrude on the rest of the people's desires to be equally free. Would I agree with an Allah phrasing in the Pledge? No. But, I don't agree with a God phrasing either. I just recognize that in either case -- though both are the same as the two words are the same in different languages -- that it's perfectly acceptable speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated. -- John Locke, Letter on Tolerance, 1689 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 Art, I believe you when you say that but please don't try to tell me that most conservatives wouldn't be marching in the street in protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 28, 2002 Author Share Posted June 28, 2002 I would have no problem with the wording "Allah" if it was 1- an option to say or not and 2- It represented the beliefs of the majority and the beliefs of the founders of the country. But as Art says, even if I had a problem with it, it wouldn't change the fact that it would be legal speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.