Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-02-2013, 06:55 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,757
Default Texas passes Merry Christmas bill

Yay! How refreshing. No wonder Texas is such a great state.

Quote:
State lawmakers in Texas have passed legislation that permits public schools to display nativity scenes, menorahs, or Christmas trees, and allows students and school district staff to use greetings such as, “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Hanukkah,” and “Happy Holidays.”


Here is a link to the full article and here is the official site for the bill as well as the timeline since its inception.
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-03-2013, 03:11 PM
County Mike's Avatar
County Mike County Mike is offline
Hailey's Dad
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Millville, NJ
Posts: 859
Default

Good. Now if they'll approve "Kick a Muslim" day I'll move there.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-03-2013, 04:38 PM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by County Mike View Post
Good. Now if they'll approve "Kick a Muslim" day I'll move there.
come on man ... the US constitution allows for freedom of religion man ... you aren't telling me that you hate muslims and would actually kick one of them for exercising their constitutional right would ya?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-03-2013, 07:12 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
come on man ... the US constitution allows for freedom of religion man ... you aren't telling me that you hate muslims and would actually kick one of them for exercising their constitutional right would ya?
The Freedom of Religion in the Constitution only prevents the US government from discriminating against someone for their religious beliefs. The restriction applies to our government and ONLY to our government, not private citizens or privately owned businesses. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires private citizens or businesses to respect other people's religious beliefs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-03-2013, 07:38 PM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
The Freedom of Religion in the Constitution only prevents the US government from discriminating against someone for their religious beliefs. The restriction applies to our government and ONLY to our government, not private citizens or privately owned businesses. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires private citizens or businesses to respect other people's religious beliefs.
well that i know ... i am just wondering why he'd want to actually kick a muslim ... i guess that is his choice really ...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-03-2013, 08:52 PM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by County Mike View Post
Good. Now if they'll approve "Kick a Muslim" day I'll move there.
Mike, lol!!!
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-03-2013, 11:34 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 17,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
The Freedom of Religion in the Constitution only prevents the US government from discriminating against someone for their religious beliefs.
Actually...it only prevents the US Government from descriminating between the differing denominations of Christianity....and requires, consequently, the division between State and Church, which didnt exist in any of the Roman Catholic Countries...and thus proved a massive conflict of interest when Protestantism emerged.

Never was this seen worse then during the English Reformation when King Henry broke from Rome, died with a young, weak heir...and had two Daughters..One Roman Catholic, One Anglican....The Founders of America saw the damage done during the Lancastrian House of Tudor, and avowed to never let that problem happen again.

Thus the split between State (be it Religious, a la Rome, or National, a la local Governments) AND the presumption that Tollerance between Romanism and Protestantism would be upheld. Further, that due to the Religious aspects of the English Civil War, which saw two PROTESTANT Denominations battle each other, the lack of mention of specific denominations was a wise move....but, technically speaking, as much a modern spin as what I mention below

At the time, these different denominations were viewed, by those who upheld them as completely different religions...hence the animosity between them.

When the US Constitution mentions "Religious" Freedom...it is NOT applied contextually to anything but the different denominations of Christianity. To apply it to other faiths, is to but a modern day spin on a document that doesnt include this as an ominssion.



But you should know that...because YOU were the one who taught me the basis...I just researched it more since and before anyone points out the faith of the Founders...Diests were an accepted part of Christondom at the time....along with Puritans
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-04-2013, 01:57 AM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,591
Default

^^^^^
doubt that ... there is plenty of discussion of the founding fathers discussing freedom of religion and mentioning religions other than Christianity, such as Islam, Judaism etc ...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-04-2013, 06:21 PM
County Mike's Avatar
County Mike County Mike is offline
Hailey's Dad
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Millville, NJ
Posts: 859
Default

Well, maybe I'll just kick the extreme muslims.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-04-2013, 07:46 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 17,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
^^^^^
doubt that ... there is plenty of discussion of the founding fathers discussing freedom of religion and mentioning religions other than Christianity, such as Islam, Judaism etc ...
Look at the time they were writing and tell me it wasnt in response to the problems caused by Government during the Reformation...That would be the Christian Reformation...NOT the Jewish Reformation...and to my best knowledge, Islam has never had a Reformation...the sects of Islam still fight like the Reformationistic Denominations to be between 1500 and 1700

Do you understand that the United States was a British Collonial Outpost. Those who lived in the United States and gained independance due to Mad King George, when they set up their own system of Governance, we egar NOT to make the same mistakes that England had done

They did Two Things in response to two different crisis points in British History. In response to the Reformation, they split the Church from the State, that in itself would screw any Monarchy...because the whole ideal of Monarchy, is the GOD himself has appointed the Monarch to Rule...split the Church from the State...and what authority does a Monarch have?

THAT is the problem faced by King Henry when he split from Rome. He put himself as head of the Church, effectively, one had to choose WHICH Monarch had been chosen by Christ....King Henry...or The Pontifex Maximus. To split the State from Church would leave King Henry in exactly the same place as Pope Innocent...His Rule undermined. The Americans, weary of being treated in a dictatorial manner, saw what happened during the Tudor Dynasty.

When Queen Mary ascended the throne...she was a Daughter of Henry, whose Son and heir died after next to no time on the throne. She was Roman Catholic, and she set about reversing the Reformation in England, and how did she do that? She killed all the Protestants as heretics But Queen Mary was Ousted, and Queen Elizabeth asscended the Throne...Elizabeth was also a Daughter of King Henry...but she was a protestant...and what do you think she did....she reversed the whole process back to protestantism. Now, Spain and France saw her as illegitamate for two reasons...First, technically she had stolen the crown from her still living Sister, Mary...who they wanted to return, Why? because she was Catholic, and therefore GOD had appointed her. These were not originally denominations...they were practically different faiths all together. Some Southern Baptists would say...they ARE different faiths...Some people never moved on from the Reformational rift.

Ironically, those who tend to rage most against Rome these days are the Presbyterians. The Presbyterian Church, almost a century after the Reformation would be a cause of the English Civil war. Whilst its generally believed that the Civil War was about Monarchist Vs Parliamentarian...you might like to know...that those who were Monarchists were generally Anglicans...and those who were Parliamentarians were generally presbyterians...who felt that Anglicanism had become the New Rome...and they felt they were oppressed, just like the Protestants had been originally...by the very insitution that had saved the Protestants...and to prove their point...they killed the King.

But once in power, this denomination split itself, and then began to turn on its self. Those who were moderate Presbyterians fell under Manchester. They wanted Equality with the Church of England. But, some radical presbyterians were known as Puritans...and they sought not equality and freedom from possible persecution by the Church of England...but the very destruction of the Church of England itself, much like the Church of England had wanted against Rome....the country wasnt big enough for both...and I'm sorry to say that the Puritans won the battle....But the Puritans couldnt maintain their grip without turning into a dictatorship...when the dictator died...they went back to The King, back to the Church of England...and the whole denomination basically dissapeared

A century after that, and the British Collonies had taken the last straw from the camels back...and they decided that the way to fix this was to make sure that all denominations of Christianity can worship without Hinderance. that way no Puritan could claim he was being squashed by a Presbyterian...and there was no Church of England, or Roman Rule connected to a Government, that could use the above for its own personal tirade against the people.

This did NOT create a Secular Society...it created a Christian Country....where everyone could be whatever Denomination they wanted, and worship without feeling that the Government, or other denominations could squash them

That has NOTHING to do with Islam, or Judaism....

the American Collonies do NOT recall the Crusades...that was before their time...neither really do they know much of the Inquizition...so whilst you can guess and say...well the forefathers would probably have extended that freedom to any faith group...that is not contextually speaking why the rules are in the document...and therefore its application is interpretation.

I personally, think that the Diests would not have imagined an America outside of Christianity...but equally, they would never have seen a "Church of America" nor a Government led Theocracy that might stop it spreading. THAT is the difficulty that America faces concerning Faiths not of Judao-christian ballence. (effectively, all Christian Denominations, are Denominations of Messianic Judaism...so I dont see Jews as a different Faith to Christians...they are simply....less enlightened by the Revelation of Christ.

I did have to laugh though when I visited Washington DC...to find that there is such a place as "National Cathedral" and its NOT multi-denominational...its Episcopalian...which also raised an eyebrow...coz that is a Church of the Anglican Denomination...as in Church of England....I guess ones roots, and old habits die hard...for if the President goes to a Cathedral in his own right....He goes to The Church of England in effect.

At least He's not Roman huh
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.