First Amendment Need not Apply

[quote name='CTLesq']What I meant was believe anything you want. It doesn't mean the government will recognize it.



Its not an issue of validity. Its an issue of recognition.



Try again.

CTL[/QUOTE]

If it's not an issue of validity, then why it is an issue of recognition pertaining to this arguement? Are you trying to say that legally you can only practice a religion that's recognized?

Of course, I came into this thread late and didn't read back too far. If we're still talking about the parents' right to raise their child Wiccan, then I say you're full of BS. If we're talking about something else, then I'll just be mosying along.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']This has to be the most ignorant thing you've said. You don't agree with symbols?!? What species are you? Humans have used symbols for millions of years. They're visual shorthand. You don't have to wear a t-shirt that says "I'm an knuckle-dragging, racist asshole" - you can just wear a swaztika. It saves time.

That fish is a symbol of christianity whether you like to think so or not and therefore doesn't belong of a government seal. Just because you don't "get" the symbol, doesn't mean it doesn't stand for something.

And the artist who claimed to think it was a symbol for all religions is either terminally stupid or trying to cover her own ass.[/QUOTE]

Nobody can realistically claim that they don't believe in symbols. In particular, if the arrangment of things we recognize as letters are placed on this monitor such that we interpret them to have meaning, then we are, in fact, interpreting symbols. That's how the forum works.

If we, body and mouth sitting still, convey a message to other people by using our fingers and a keyboard, we are using symbols to represent what we are thinking about at the moment.

It's basic symbolic interactionism. I'd hate to see how you drive, if you don't believe in symbols. What do two yellow lines mean? What's that round thing above your lap? Key? What's that? Red, yellow, and green are meaningless to me, not to begin speaking of these things you call "roads."

myke.
...our social structure is dependent upon the constant recognition of and reaction to symbols. That's why you act nice to the man in the blue uniform with the badge, and like a dick to the assemblage of electrons that represent me in the form of a cartoon drawing of the Shogun of Harlem.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Nobody can realistically claim that they don't believe in symbols. In particular, if the arrangment of things we recognize as letters are placed on this monitor such that we interpret them to have meaning, then we are, in fact, interpreting symbols. That's how the forum works.

If we, body and mouth sitting still, convey a message to other people by using our fingers and a keyboard, we are using symbols to represent what we are thinking about at the moment.

It's basic symbolic interactionism. I'd hate to see how you drive, if you don't believe in symbols. What do two yellow lines mean? What's that round thing above your lap? Key? What's that? Red, yellow, and green are meaningless to me, not to begin speaking of these things you call "roads."

myke.
...our social structure is dependent upon the constant recognition of and reaction to symbols. That's why you act nice to the man in the blue uniform with the badge, and like a dick to the assemblage of electrons that represent me in the form of a cartoon drawing of the Shogun of Harlem.[/QUOTE]

Noone is offended by any of these "symbols"
 
[quote name='evilmax17']If it's not an issue of validity, then why it is an issue of recognition pertaining to this arguement? Are you trying to say that legally you can only practice a religion that's recognized?

Of course, I came into this thread late and didn't read back too far. If we're still talking about the parents' right to raise their child Wiccan, then I say you're full of BS. If we're talking about something else, then I'll just be mosying along.[/QUOTE]

I think CTL's point about the recognition of religions as "recognized," and others as "not" has some truth to it. It's called hegemony, and just like in professional sports, in America, there are "the big three."

However, I don't agree with the law's interpretation; it doesn't even smack of the kind of equality experienced in the Jim Crow era of "separate but not equal." This judicial ruling treats Wicca as neither separate nor equal.

On the other hand, overpermissiveness premised upon "religion" should be avoided. I believe I read a story about a CostCo employee who sued for wrongful termination, claiming she belonged to the "church of body modification," and thus couldn't remove her eyebrow ring. Several thoughts on that: (1) body mod is certainly a culture, but lacks a great deal of metaphysical what-have-you to be a religion, (2) eyebrow rings are just trashy looking (says the man w/ 1" lobes). The pendulum effect of people making claims like this woman could lead to greater restriction on what constitues religion; that is rather frightening to me; wicca at least has a long, long, long (long as little baby Jebus) history, so, in Max Weber's terms, it has "traditional authority." Should that be the new standard? Anyway...

myke.
...SOMEONE NEEDS TO STOP THESE ACTIVIST JUDGES!!! :rofl:
 
[quote name='Rich']Noone is offended by any of these "symbols"[/QUOTE]

Your words, homeboy:

[quote name='rich'] that. It's not Jesus, it's a fish.

Just like I don't equate Confederate Flags with slavery and swastikas with Nazism, I don't equate a ing fish with Jesus. Symbolism is a ing joke. If these were pictures of slaves, pictures of Auschwitz, or pictures of Jesus walking on water, respectively, then I could see people being offended, but not by a ing picture of nothing offense.[/quote]

"Symbolism if a fucking joke."

I'm arguing that it's fundamentally necessary to a stable society, which is contrary to it being a "fucking joke."

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Your words, homeboy:



"Symbolism if a fucking joke."

I'm arguing that it's fundamentally necessary to a stable society, which is contrary to it being a "fucking joke."

myke.[/QUOTE]

First, I ask that you don't call me "homeboy."

It is a fucking joke, when people are offended by a picture of a goddamn fish.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']If it's not an issue of validity, then why it is an issue of recognition pertaining to this arguement?[/quote]

Within the context of the Court deciding what is right for a child yes a recognized religion will be protected, one that is not recognized won't.

[quote name='evilmax17']Are you trying to say that legally you can only practice a religion that's recognized?[/quote]

The mother (as an adult) can practice anything she wants. I think you are forgetting we are talking about a child and a divorce decree.

[quote name='evilmax17']Of course, I came into this thread late and didn't read back too far. If we're still talking about the parents' right to raise their child Wiccan, then I say you're full of BS. If we're talking about something else, then I'll just be mosying along.[/QUOTE]

Given that you are confused about what you are talking about I am not concerned if you think I am full of BS.

We are talking about a child, a divorce decree and a "religion" that is not recognized. Within the context of a judge determining what is in the best interests of a child - sorry you people don't have an argument.

CTL
 
[quote name='Rich']First, I ask that you don't call me "homeboy."

It is a fucking joke, when people are offended by a picture of a goddamn fish.[/QUOTE]

People getting offended is just an example fo their insecurity. My favourite clan of bastards, the ACLU, finds people who 'feel bad' or are offended by some irrelevent thing, and they take it to court and force the dipshit's feelings on all of us. The case of the 10 Commandments on federal property in Alabama, for example. Gee, someone might be offended seeing such a blasphemus document containing things such as "Thou shall not steal/kill/covet", so let's remove it so they don't suffer psychological stress.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']We are talking about a child, a divorce decree and a "religion" that is not recognized. Within the context of a judge determining what is in the best interests of a child - sorry you people don't have an argument.[/QUOTE]

And how Christianity is the "right" way to raise a child.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']And how Christianity is the "right" way to raise a child.[/QUOTE]

It's certainly not wrong.
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']It's certainly not wrong.[/QUOTE]

It is if you want the kid to grow up to think for him self and have a realistic view of the world.
 
[quote name='Kayden']It is if you want the kid to grow up to think for him self and have a realistic view of the world.[/QUOTE]

A more realistic view of the world? When does Christianity give you a convoluted view of the world?
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']People getting offended is just an example fo their insecurity. My favourite clan of bastards, the ACLU, finds people who 'feel bad' or are offended by some irrelevent thing, and they take it to court and force the dipshit's feelings on all of us. The case of the 10 Commandments on federal property in Alabama, for example. Gee, someone might be offended seeing such a blasphemus document containing things such as "Thou shall not steal/kill/covet", so let's remove it so they don't suffer psychological stress.[/QUOTE]

It's not about imagined psychological stress. It's about providing a fair and impartial court system whether you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian ethic or not. That first commandment isn't "Be excellent to each other," it's "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Not exactly a welcoming statement for atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, etc. who are also Americans and deserve the full protection of the court.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']It's not about imagined psychological stress. It's about providing a fair and impartial court system whether you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian ethic or not. That first commandment isn't "Be excellent to each other," it's "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Not exactly a welcoming statement for atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, etc. who are also Americans and deserve the full protection of the court.[/QUOTE]

I do conceed that there are a couple christian-exclusive Commandments, but I still have to reiterate the fact that American laws are based (albeit loosly these days) on the 10 Commandments. Excluding the several Christian commandments, there is nothing wrong with the other 7 or so. Hardly are there laws that say "YTou shall have no other Gods before me", so I don't see how anyone would get bent out of shape unless they just like to nitpick about things.
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']I do conceed that there are a couple christian-exclusive Commandments, but I still have to reiterate the fact that American laws are based (albeit loosly these days) on the 10 Commandments. Excluding the several Christian commandments, there is nothing wrong with the other 7 or so. Hardly are there laws that say "YTou shall have no other Gods before me", so I don't see how anyone would get bent out of shape unless they just like to nitpick about things.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you need to reread those Top Ten again. Only murder and stealing are illegal. Lying is only illegal under certain circumstance like perjury. So at the most 2.5 are the basis for laws and those can be found in almost any culture throughout history, not Christian exclusives. I doubt you would call it nitpicking if a judge wanted to erect a 2 ton granite statue (in the dead of night) to a god you don't believe in.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']And how Christianity is the "right" way to raise a child.[/QUOTE]

Christianity has nothing to do with the issue of the recognition of the Wiccan "church".

For all you know they are Jews.

But nice attempt to bait.

CTL
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Maybe you need to reread those Top Ten again. Only murder and stealing are illegal. Lying is only illegal under certain circumstance like perjury. So at the most 2.5 are the basis for laws and those can be found in almost any culture throughout history, not Christian exclusives. I doubt you would call it nitpicking if a judge wanted to erect a 2 ton granite statue (in the dead of night) to a god you don't believe in.[/QUOTE]

Well, crap, you're right. Damn you.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Christianity has nothing to do with the issue of the recognition of the Wiccan "church".

For all you know they are Jews.

But nice attempt to bait.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Wow, that was ignorant. I know what wicca is, and your argument so far has been that mainstream religion is the only religion.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']This has to be the most ignorant thing you've said. You don't agree with symbols?!? What species are you? Humans have used symbols for millions of years. They're visual shorthand. You don't have to wear a t-shirt that says "I'm an knuckle-dragging, racist asshole" - you can just wear a swaztika. It saves time.
[/QUOTE]

You need to study more history, the "swastika" has gone by many names and is one of the world's oldest symbols. This makes the point that symbols can mean many different things to many people.

[quote name='Kayden']It is if you want the kid to grow up to think for him self and have a realistic view of the world.[/QUOTE]

Tons of info we get when we are kids are learned from our parents, teching him any religion or even that relgion is pointless will not create a person who thinks for himself, that's something you learn later in life, usually on your own accord. As for a realisitic view of the world, christianity would be no worse than any other religion. Do you think that teaching the child the principles of his wicca religion's oneness with nature and lack of evil will create a realistic view of the world?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']A swastika is actually a Japanese kanji character meaning "peace".[/QUOTE]

Which is exactly what Duo just proved. :applause:
 
[quote name='CTLesq']

But why don't we apply American laws to an American court case?

The reality is that the wiccan "religion" isn't recognized. There is nothing more to this.

In a shocking twist to this forum people are just looking for something to complain about and scream oppresion.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Read the article, dumbass.

Even the U.S. military accommodates Wiccans and educates chaplains about their beliefs, said Lawrence W. Snyder, an associate professor of religious studies at Western Kentucky University.

"The federal government has given Wiccans protection under the First Amendment," Snyder said. "Unless this judge has some very specific information about activities involving the child that are harmful, the law is not on his side."

but the real point isn't what constitutes a "mainstream" religion or not. The guy could pratice praying to trees for all I care. The issue is that the governement is specifically telling a citizen what religion they can and can't expose their kids to. Which sure sounds the opposite of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

When the first amendment gets trambled on, you bet I'll scream.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Read the article, dumbass.

Even the U.S. military accommodates Wiccans and educates chaplains about their beliefs, said Lawrence W. Snyder, an associate professor of religious studies at Western Kentucky University.

"The federal government has given Wiccans protection under the First Amendment," Snyder said. "Unless this judge has some very specific information about activities involving the child that are harmful, the law is not on his side."

but the real point isn't what constitutes a "mainstream" religion or not. The guy could pratice praying to trees for all I care. The issue is that the governement is specifically telling a citizen what religion they can and can't expose their kids to. Which sure sounds the opposite of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

When the first amendment gets trambled on, you bet I'll scream.[/QUOTE]

Placed within the context of a divorce decree for the protection of a child not quite.

And don't mistake "accomodation" with recognition.

But I am glad to be fighting with internet lawyers.

CTL
 
[quote name='Rich']First, I ask that you don't call me "homeboy."

It is a fucking joke, when people are offended by a picture of a goddamn fish.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you like "homeboy"? What, is this fucking Meet the Press?

Anyway, I'd like to see the image that was contested before dismissing it out of hand as "just a fish." dIf it is the fish that is on the image you posted on page 2, I'd like to know if the town has a large fishing trade, or lots of Red Lobster restaraunts; if not pragmatic, the only remaining implication is religious.

myke.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']A swastika is actually a Japanese kanji character meaning "peace".[/QUOTE]

Yes there it's a manji, in China it's a wan, Greece a Gammadion, etc. The word is derived directly from sanskrit in which is stood for luck and goodwill. Until it was twisted into a different meaning by the Nazis, it was used by cultures for almost 3,000 years to depict various things, particularly a symbol indictcating the sun. In short it's been a symbol for tons of religions and cultures over the century and still considered a very strong symbol in Hinduism. Like I said, symbols rarely have a universal meaning and also the swastika is a good example of how people, if they really desire, can twist a symbol into whatever they want it to mean.
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']A more realistic view of the world? When does Christianity give you a convoluted view of the world?[/QUOTE]
:whistle2:s

Was that really a serious question?

The world was created in 6 days. Its watch over by an invisible man that made a special paradise with you in mind for when you die. The current population of 7 billion people consisting of hundreds of colors, religions, and ethnicities all spawned from two people... that only had two sons. It advocates that fermented grapes can turn into the blood of a man whos been dead for 2000 years when a "selfless" man in silk robes touches it.

Do you really want me to continue?
 
[quote name='CTLesq']But I am glad to be fighting with internet lawyers.[/QUOTE]

On the internet, everyone is an expert.

If your not, then your an idiot.

The internet contains the collective knowledge of the world.
 
[quote name='Kayden']:whistle2:s

Was that really a serious question?

The world was created in 6 days. Its watch over by an invisible man that made a special paradise with you in mind for when you die. The current population of 7 billion people consisting of hundreds of colors, religions, and ethnicities all spawned from two people... that only had two sons. It advocates that fermented grapes can turn into the blood of a man whos been dead for 2000 years when a "selfless" man in silk robes touches it.

Do you really want me to continue?[/QUOTE]

Fundamentalist Christians believe that it was six 24-hour periods, but most of the other less extreme Christians I know define the "6 days" as a substantial span of time, not just 24 hours. Also, the wine was meant to symbolize (there's that word again) the blood of Christ.

However, it is hard to believe that most of the biblical stuff could happen (which is why I used to be athiest), but for all we know, it did. There isn't proof that there is a God, but also evolutionists lack the evidence saying that there is no God, or that your spirit goes to a heaven or hell once you die. I mean, nobody knows what happens when you die, so I don't think we'll ever solve the problem of whether or not God exists.

Christians follow what they all God's word because it gives them a moral compass from which they dictate how they (in some cases how others, unfortunately) should live their lives. Such beliefs that going to church every sunday will cleanse their minds is hardly a bad thing, as it keeps them focused on positive aspects of their lives. -Keep in mind this is excluding cultists like that freak uber-mormon who killed several families in the midwest.-
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']You need to study more history, the "swastika" has gone by many names and is one of the world's oldest symbols. This makes the point that symbols can mean many different things to many people. [/QUOTE]

For clarity's sake, I should have said "a Nazi swaztika." I just don't see that many skinheads wearing manji, wan, or Gammadion t-shirts.
 
The reality is that its completely meaningless what a symbol means 'historically'. If you ask 100 average people what the swastika symbol is, you'll get 100 people who say that its the Nazi symbol (and MAYBE 2-3 who'll know that it has other meanings.) If you ask 100 average people what that fish symbol is in that town's sign, 95+ of them are going to say that its the Jesus fish.

It would be like going to a college frat beer-bash saying things like "Oh, this is such a gay party! Oh, I'm just so happy and gay! Are you gay to?" You can argue that your usage is referring to being happy all you want, you're still probably going to get punched in the face.
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']Fundamentalist Christians believe that it was six 24-hour periods, but most of the other less extreme Christians I know define the "6 days" as a substantial span of time, not just 24 hours. Also, the wine was meant to symbolize (there's that word again) the blood of Christ.
[/QUOTE]

Symbol my ass.
transubstantiation

n 1: the Roman Catholic doctrine that the whole substance of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ when consecrated in the Eucharist 2: an act that changes the form or character or substance of something
 
[quote name='Kayden'] It advocates that fermented grapes can turn into the blood of a man whos been dead for 2000 years when a "selfless" man in silk robes touches it.
[/QUOTE]


"That guy must have been wasted 24/7!"
 
[quote name='Rich']It will happen. Quite frankly, I don't care considering my faith, but it will happen.

I leave you with this:

"I believe no one can read the history of our contry without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses....Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia....or to the Charter of New England...or to the Charter of Mass. Bay....or to the Fundamental Order of Connecticut...the same objective is present: a Christian land governed by Christian principles."

--Chief Justice Earl Warren.

"This is a Chrstian Nation"

--Supreme Court, 1892

"America was born a Christian nation born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scripture."

--Woodrow Wilson, 1911

Americans are a "Christian people"

--Justice George Sutherland, reaffirming the Supreme Court in 1892.

America was "founded on the principles of Christianity"

--FDR at Placentia Bay

"This is a Christian nation"

--Harry Truman

"We are a religious people and our instituions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being"

--Justice William Douglas

"We have a responsibility to try to shape government so that it does exemplify the Will of God"

--Jimmy Carter

"This Court's decision bristles with histility to all things religious in public life...Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of 'public thansgiving and prayer to be observed acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God'"

--Chief Justice Rehnquist in response to the Supreme Court's decisions banning many of the laws against Christian things such as prayers at graduation and moments of silence at the start of school days.




Thank you, and good night.[/QUOTE]

Considering those are all interpretations what this country is, one side of a debate and none having to do with its founding, they are irrelevant.

fuck that. It's not Jesus, it's a fish.

Just like I don't equate Confederate Flags with slavery and swastikas with Nazism, I don't equate a fucking fish with Jesus. Symbolism is a fucking joke. If these were pictures of slaves, pictures of Auschwitz, or pictures of Jesus walking on water, respectively, then I could see people being offended, but not by a fucking picture of nothing offense.
Click to expand...

I just figured out that you have no idea what that fish is a symbol of. It was used by early christians so they could communicate to other christians without romans knowing. It is still used today to indicate "christian", it is in no way representative of a fish.

I hate to tell you this but in divorce decrees the judge has a wide lattitude in what he can restrict a parent from doing such as smoking around children.

I would also add I don't know that the Wiccan "church" is recognized as legitimate, so I don't know that there is any discrimination going on here.

Its not as though the judge said the other parent couldn't teach Christian, Jewish or Muslim religious beliefs to the child.

Sorry, not all "religions" are equal. Nor should they be.

CTLp
Click to expand...

Wait, so a judge can tell parents what religion they can/ cannot teach now? It's probably the most sizeable modern pagan religion and the most well known, druidism being the only possible exception, but it's not as large. It is not a centralized church or anything.

Christian, jewish and muslim beliefs are just as important to the individual as any other belief system they hold.

And what exactly would make one religion superior, or lesser than, another? You need an invisible man in the sky to be respected in this country?

And no thats not what I am saying. 50 years ago a magistrate in Jerusalem would have acknowledged Christianity as a major religion.
Click to expand...

learn to read, he said 1950 years ago.

But why don't we apply American laws to an American court case?

The reality is that the wiccan "religion" isn't recognized. There is nothing more to this.

In a shocking twist to this forum people are just looking for something to complain about and scream oppresion.
Click to expand...

I hate idiots. Get a book and learn what the hell it is.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_rel.htm

U.S. Court decisions:

Some court decisions which have recognized Wicca are:

topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]An important ruling of a state Supreme Court was in Georgia: Roberts v. Ravenwood Church of Wicca, (249 Ga. 348) in 1982. It was similar to Dettmer v Landon, below.[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The District Court of Virginia declared in 1985 (Dettmer v Landon, 617 F Suup 592 [E. Dst. Va.]) that Wicca is "clearly a religion for First Amendment purposes....Members of the Church sincerely adhere to a fairly complex set of doctrines relating to the spiritual aspect of their lives, and in doing so they have 'ultimate concerns' in much the same way as followers of more accepted religions. Their ceremonies and leadership structure, their rather elaborate set of articulated doctrine, their belief in the concept of another world, and their broad concern for improving the quality of life for others gives them at least some facial similarity to other more widely recognized religions." 1 This was a landmark case.[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Judge J. Butzner of the Fourth Circuit Federal Appeals Court confirmed the Dettmer v Landon decision (799F 2nd 929) in 1986. He said: "We agree with the District Court that the doctrine taught by the Church of Wicca is a religion." Butzner J. 1986 Fourth Circuit.[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A case was brought in 1983 in the U.S. District Court in Michigan. The court found that 3 employees of a prison had restricted an inmate in the performance of his Wiccan rituals. This "deprived him of his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws." More details[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A case Wheeler v Condom was argued before a U.S. Postal Service Administrative Judge regarding who had the right to pick up mail addressed to The Church of Y Tylwyth Teg (a.k.a. Y Tylwyth Teg), and The Association of Cymmry Wicca and delivered to a Georgia post office box. The 1989 decision recognized both groups as valid religious organizations. 2[/font]
topbul1d.gif
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Many other cases are listed in the Welsh Witchcraft web site. [/font]
Click to expand...

point, set, match

You ever want to know what wicca is come out to boston, my neighbor across the street is wiccan, and I know a lot of places where you can find plenty of wiccans.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Symbol my ass.
transubstantiation

n 1: the Roman Catholic doctrine that the whole substance of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ when consecrated in the Eucharist 2: an act that changes the form or character or substance of something[/QUOTE]

I was always told is was a symbol. Also, when it happened, Jesus said "Take, eat, this is my body" in relation to the bread. He was there, but analogized (sp) the bread in relation to himself. Alos, he raised the wine and said "This is my blood shed for the covenant", or something similar. The fact is is that Jesus wanted these two items to be consumed in his rememberance, not his actual body. Each sect of Christianity has different ideas, Roman Catholicism isn't the only one.
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']People getting offended is just an example fo their insecurity. My favourite clan of bastards, the ACLU, finds people who 'feel bad' or are offended by some irrelevent thing, and they take it to court and force the dipshit's feelings on all of us. The case of the 10 Commandments on federal property in Alabama, for example. Gee, someone might be offended seeing such a blasphemus document containing things such as "Thou shall not steal/kill/covet", so let's remove it so they don't suffer psychological stress.[/QUOTE]

Never mind all the religious symbols inside the Supreme Court. And when they ruled you can't begin a day with voluntary prayer, even though the Court begins every session with prayer.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Symbol my ass.
transubstantiation

n 1: the Roman Catholic doctrine that the whole substance of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ when consecrated in the Eucharist 2: an act that changes the form or character or substance of something[/QUOTE]

Roman Catholicism is a minority.
 
[quote name='Rich']Never mind all the religious symbols inside the Supreme Court. And when they ruled you can't begin a day with voluntary prayer, even though the Court begins every session with prayer.[/QUOTE]

As recall, there's a statue of the Big 10 behind the Supreme Court Justices. I don't know precisely when it was erected, but I'm sure it cause people psychological consternation when it was built. The ACLU just needs excuses to whine.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Symbol my ass.
transubstantiation

n 1: the Roman Catholic doctrine that the whole substance of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ when consecrated in the Eucharist 2: an act that changes the form or character or substance of something[/QUOTE]

You know, Roman Catholic doctorine doesn't determine the doctorine for all branches of christianity. In the Protestant chuch for example the bread an wine and communion IS a symbol commemorating the Last Supper. In short, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions on subjects you apparently know little about.
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']As recall, there's a statue of the Big 10 behind the Supreme Court Justices. I don't know precisely when it was erected, but I'm sure it cause people psychological consternation when it was built. The ACLU just needs excuses to whine.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, damn those ACLU bastards fighting for unpopular causes of civil liberties. Mob rule! Mob Rule! :roll:
 
I love an arguement like this. The judge wasn't required to prove that the religion was harmful to the child (which it isn't), just that it is confusing. What's next - Asian parents cannot speak Chinese to their kids at home, since it might be confusing when their classmates speak English?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Yeah, damn those ACLU bastards fighting for unpopular causes of civil liberties. Mob rule! Mob Rule! :roll:[/QUOTE]

Please. They fight for irrelevent nutcases who dislike something and want it removed because they're too pussy to deal with it and go on with their lives. My example being that fuckwad ex-park ranger in the ACLU thread:

"Frank Buono, a retired park ranger turned professional activist, the ACLU demanded that the National Park Service tear down the cross.

Mr. Buono insists that his seeing the monument ("two to four times a year") violates his civil rights." Aw, damn, see, I hate having to walk by my sister's door two to four times a year, because it's covered in pictures of Raven and Hillary Douche. So I should tell mommy to take it down because it violates my civil liberties. My other point in relation to this retard is 'what civil liberties are bing infringed'? There aren't any.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Placed within the context of a divorce decree for the protection of a child not quite.

And don't mistake "accomodation" with recognition.

But I am glad to be fighting with internet lawyers.

CTL[/QUOTE]

protection of a child is an all together different matter. A child should be protected regardless of the religion. The two aren't related especially when there were no issues of that type with this case. Keep digging that hole.

Way to dodge the second point about the Federal Government granting protection to wiccas. You're a joke

You don't have to be a lawyer to know how to read. (besides both my bro and sister are lawyers, sis specializing in child protection/ custody cases)
 
[quote name='Rich']Never mind all the religious symbols inside the Supreme Court. And when they ruled you can't begin a day with voluntary prayer, even though the Court begins every session with prayer.[/QUOTE]

I believe you mean publicly-funded school day. I can still wake up praying to whooever and whatever I want.

However this child is now forced to pray to one of the "Big Three" or nothing.

My questions:

Who's going to pay for the thought police surveillance?

Are childhood favorites like "the tooth fairy" and "haloween" now off-limits?
 
[quote name='usickenme']protection of a child is an all together different matter. A child should be protected regardless of the religion.[/quote]

And the child is being protected from the wiccan "religion".

[quote name='usickenme']The two aren't related especially when there were no issues of that type with this case. Keep digging that hole.[/quote]

I am sorry - clearly you can't read. This is about modifying a divorce decree which includes how the child will be brought up.

[quote name='usickenme']Way to dodge the second point about the Federal Government granting protection to wiccas. You're a joke[/quote]

Way to not not understand the difference between accomodation in the US military and recognition for tax purposes and in a divorce decree involving a child.

[quote name='usickenme']You don't have to be a lawyer to know how to read. (besides both my bro and sister are lawyers, sis specializing in child protection/ custody cases)[/QUOTE]

Well you should consult them as you don't understand the law in this issue and you should complain to whatever public school system you graduated from as you cannot read and comprehend what others have written.

CTL
 
CTL, why don't you come back when you know what the hell wicca is.

I've already given examples of where courts ruled it to be a valid religion, completely harmless.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']It was a religious display on public grounds. Private land would have been acceptible.[/QUOTE]

There's the problem that the federal government declared it national ground. If they take the private ownership, I think it should still be allowed to exist unless it blocks construction or something of federal nature. What I mean is, unless the governmen has active plans for the spot, the cross should stay because it was there before the land was made public. Besides, it was a memorial to soldiers who fought in WWI, for Christ's sakes. We have a national holiday commemorating the same idea.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']CTL, why don't you come back when you know what the hell wicca is.[/QUOTE]

Because the only thing I have to know is that its not a recognized religion by the government.

Why don't you people come back when you have some basis in law other than if we all aren't treated the same (even with material differences that invalidate the argument) than its discrimination?

CTL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top