Bible Thumpers make a Buddists life hell in school

[Havlicekstealsit]

TIL this board is chock-full of xenophobes.

[AtiliusRegulus]

Buddhists don't believe in hell though.

who cares what they believe. what we have here is liberal policies opened the flood gates to immigrants of various cultures and religions thereby diluting the original christian cultural core in America. the end result is America is moving towards the left with socialism and poverty.

the only escape for america is a reemergence of the original cultural core and this can only come about by secession.

[AtiliusRegulus]

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in the decision of Everson v. Board of Education, quoting Thomas Jefferson. You are doing nothing but making shit up. And it is disputed that some of the founding fathers weren't even Christian, but deists.

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about making exceptions against Islam and Buddhism. You are doing nothing but assuming. You've got it completely backwards. If you don't like it that we don't live in a theocracy, YOU need to get the fuck out, not the people who want to worship freely without persecution.

garbage. all the founding fathers weren't deists. get that straight. America was moving towards the enlightenment but the core of the <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">country</a> was christian.

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Again simple historical context shows that the founders and the culture core were brutishly ethnocentric and did not ever countenance islam, buddhism, taoism, animism and mysticism as equal religions on par with christianity. Because of this the first amendment must always be read in context of the original cultural and religious core of the country.

That's an absurd reading of the First Amendment. If your reading of the First Amendment was correct, Congress could pass a law prohibiting the practice of every religion other than Christianity.

I've read it several times and in its historical context and I can assure you that I am reading it correctly and you are reading it incorrectly.
The first amendment's religious context regards the various religions/ denominations of christianity which existed at the time in the colonies. The first amendment was never meant to be an open door to all religions without exception. It is because of the original context that the continental congress etc opened with prayer and every office holder was sworn in on a Bible, not a koran or the holy books of other religions.

[Ghostown42]

I understand it fully well and the fact remains that Buddhism, Islam etc was not in the purview of those who wrote it. What they meant were the different denominations within Christianity. at best catholic vs protestant. the founders in principle did not forsee a hodge podge of various religions from various <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">parts</a></a></a> of the world even to including native american mysticism.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in the decision of Everson v. Board of Education, quoting Thomas Jefferson. You are doing nothing but making shit up. And it is disputed that some of the founding fathers weren't even Christian, but deists.

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about making exceptions against Islam and Buddhism. You are doing nothing but assuming. You've got it completely backwards. If you don't like it that we don't live in a theocracy, YOU need to get the fuck out, not the people who want to worship freely without persecution.

garbage. all the founding fathers weren't deists. get that straight. America was moving towards the enlightenment but the core of the country was christian.

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Again simple historical context shows that the founders and the culture core were brutishly ethnocentric and did not ever countenance islam, buddhism, taoism, animism and mysticism as equal religions on par with christianity. Because of this the first amendment must always be read in context of the original cultural and religious core of the country.

You have a reading comprehension problem. Both, with the Constitution and with what I post.

Like I said, if you have a problem with a multicultural society, why don't you move to a country with a theocracy?

[Shill Jackson]

Buddhists don't believe in hell though.

who cares what they believe. what we have here is liberal policies opened the flood gates to immigrants of various cultures and religions thereby diluting the original christian cultural core in America. the end result is America is moving towards the left with socialism and poverty.

the only escape for america is a reemergence of the original cultural core and this can only come about by secession.

I am willing to give Florida.
You myth creators can go there.

The rest of us understand that separation of church and state is what allows ALL Americans to live in freedom.

[Sudanese Sensation]

garbage. all the founding fathers weren't deists. get that straight. America was moving towards the enlightenment but the core of the <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">country</a> was christian.

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Again simple historical context shows that the founders and the culture core were brutishly ethnocentric and did not ever countenance islam, buddhism, taoism, animism and mysticism as equal religions on par with christianity. Because of this the first amendment must always be read in context of the original cultural and religious core of the country.

That's an absurd reading of the First Amendment. If your reading of the First Amendment was correct, Congress could pass a law prohibiting the practice of every religion other than Christianity.

I've read it several times and in its historical context and I can assure you that I am reading it correctly and you are reading it incorrectly.
The first amendment's religious context regards the various religions/ denominations of christianity which existed at the time in the colonies. The first amendment was never meant to be an open door to all religions without exception. It is because of the original context that the continental congress etc opened with prayer and every office holder was sworn in on a Bible, not a koran or the holy books of other religions.

According to your reading of the First Amendment, Congress can outlaw the practice of Judaism and Islam in the United States and in the areas where it has jurisdiction. Is that correct? And if your answer is that it is correct can you please point me and the other readers of this thread to the case law.

Thank you in advance.

[Sudanese Sensation]

garbage. all the founding fathers weren't deists. get that straight. America was moving towards the enlightenment but the core of the <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">country</a> was christian.

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Again simple historical context shows that the founders and the culture core were brutishly ethnocentric and did not ever countenance islam, buddhism, taoism, animism and mysticism as equal religions on par with christianity. Because of this the first amendment must always be read in context of the original cultural and religious core of the country.

That's an absurd reading of the First Amendment. If your reading of the First Amendment was correct, Congress could pass a law prohibiting the practice of every religion other than Christianity.

I've read it several times and in its historical context and I can assure you that I am reading it correctly and you are reading it incorrectly.
The first amendment's religious context regards the various religions/ denominations of christianity which existed at the time in the colonies. The first amendment was never meant to be an open door to all religions without exception. It is because of the original context that the continental congress etc opened with prayer and every office holder was sworn in on a Bible, not a koran or the holy books of other religions.

According to your reading of the First Amendment, Congress can outlaw the practice of Judaism and Islam in the United States and in the areas where it has jurisdiction. Is that correct? And if your answer is that it is correct can you please point me and the other readers of this thread to the case law which supports your position.

Thank you in advance.

[Ghostown42]

Buddhists don't believe in hell though.

who cares what they believe. what we have here is liberal policies opened the flood gates to immigrants of various cultures and religions thereby diluting the original christian cultural core in America. the end result is America is moving towards the left with socialism and poverty.

the only escape for america is a reemergence of the original cultural core and this can only come about by secession.

I am willing to give Florida.
You myth creators can go there.

The rest of us understand that separation of church and state is what allows ALL Americans to live in freedom.

He hates the concept of freedom. He wants his beliefs to dictate everyone else's actions.

[AtiliusRegulus]

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in the decision of Everson v. Board of Education, quoting Thomas Jefferson. You are doing nothing but making shit up. And it is disputed that some of the founding <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">fathers</a> weren't even Christian, but deists.

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about making exceptions against Islam and Buddhism. You are doing nothing but assuming. You've got it completely backwards. If you don't like it that we don't live in a theocracy, YOU need to get the fuck out, not the people who want to worship freely without persecution.

garbage. all the founding fathers weren't deists. get that straight. America was moving towards the enlightenment but the core of the country was christian.

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Again simple historical context shows that the founders and the culture core were brutishly ethnocentric and did not ever countenance islam, buddhism, taoism, animism and mysticism as equal religions on par with christianity. Because of this the first amendment must always be read in context of the original cultural and religious core of the country.

You have a reading comprehension problem. Both, with the Constitution and with what I post.

Like I said, if you have a problem with a multicultural society, why don't you move to a country with a theocracy?

nah, "you be da one with da problem". I provided context to the first amendment. you provided a 21st century egalitarian interpretation of the first amendment. I bet you also believe in gun control and gun licenses.

[Ghostown42]

garbage. all the founding fathers weren't deists. get that straight. America was moving towards the enlightenment but the core of the country was christian.

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Again simple historical context shows that the founders and the culture core were brutishly ethnocentric and did not ever countenance islam, buddhism, taoism, animism and mysticism as equal religions on par with christianity. Because of this the first amendment must always be read in context of the original cultural and religious core of the country.

You have a reading comprehension problem. Both, with the Constitution and with what I post.

Like I said, if you have a problem with a multicultural society, why don't you move to a country with a theocracy?

nah, "you be da one with da problem". I provided context to the first amendment. you provided a 21st century egalitarian interpretation of the first amendment. I bet you also believe in gun control and gun licenses.

All you did was make assertions and assumptions. You provided absolutely no data or facts. I provided actual quotes from a founding father and a federal judge. The laws are what they are. If you don't like it, move to the middle east. You can have your theocracy there.

[Sudanese Sensation]

garbage. all the founding fathers weren't deists. get that straight. America was moving towards the enlightenment but the core of the country was christian.

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Again simple historical context shows that the founders and the culture core were brutishly ethnocentric and did not ever countenance islam, buddhism, taoism, animism and mysticism as equal religions on par with christianity. Because of this the first amendment must always be read in context of the original cultural and religious core of the country.

You have a reading comprehension problem. Both, with the Constitution and with what I post.

Like I said, if you have a problem with a multicultural society, why don't you move to a country with a theocracy?

nah, "you be da one with da problem". I provided context to the first amendment. you provided a 21st century egalitarian interpretation of the first amendment. I bet you also believe in gun control and gun licenses.

Sir, you are making this up as you are going along... The framers of the Bill of the Rights, namely George Mason and James Madison, must be spinning in their graves when they read that some random poster on a internet board in construing their Amendment to allow religious freedom to prohibit the practice of religions other than Christianity in the United States.

The First Amendment means what it says. If somebody wants to worship a rock, he should be feel to worship that rock, free from government encumbrances.

[AtiliusRegulus]

All you did was make assertions and assumptions. You provided absolutely no data or facts. I provided actual quotes from a founding father and a federal judge. The laws are what they are. If you don't like it, move to the middle east. You can have your theocracy there.

I provided the historical context. If that is what you call assertions and assumptions so be it, but facts are facts. Buddhism, Islam, Toaism were not in the purview of the founders when they wrote the first amendment. Neither was pornography. The first amendment was to allow the freedom of the press to hold government accountable, and for the freedom of christian denominations, hence not the federal government favoring methodists over episcopalians or presbyterians over catholics.

Do you actually think the first amendment applies to the human sacrificing aztec religion.

[Ghostown42]

[AtiliusRegulus]

The First Amendment means what it says. If somebody wants to worship a rock, he should be feel to worship that rock, free from government encumbrances.

wrong that is your interpretation. what if someone wants to engage in human sacrifice viz a viz the aztec and the mayans. should he feel free to sacrifice voluntary victims free from government encumbrances?

[Ghostown42]

The First Amendment means what it says. If somebody wants to worship a rock, he should be feel to worship that rock, free from government encumbrances.

wrong that is your interpretation. what if someone wants to engage in human sacrifice viz a viz the aztec and the mayans. should he feel free to sacrifice voluntary victims free from government encumbrances?

Yes, just like unruly children and prostitutes should have the option of being stoned to death (YOUR religion).

[AtiliusRegulus]

The First Amendment means what it says. If somebody wants to worship a rock, he should be feel to worship that rock, free from government encumbrances.

wrong that is your interpretation. what if someone wants to engage in human sacrifice viz a viz the aztec and the mayans. should he feel free to sacrifice voluntary victims free from government encumbrances?

Yes, just like unruly <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">children</a> and prostitutes should have the option of being stoned to death (YOUR religion).

actually those laws and similar were on the books in puritan america and after america's founding and the constitution. go check out the laws of new england and delaware.

ps. the bible doesn't recommend the stoning of prostitutes, only adulterers or if the prostitute is the daughter of a high priest.

[Deez]

bibke?

[Ghostown42]

wrong that is your interpretation. what if someone wants to engage in human sacrifice viz a viz the aztec and the mayans. should he feel free to sacrifice voluntary victims free from government encumbrances?

Yes, just like unruly <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">children</a> and prostitutes should have the option of being stoned to death (YOUR religion).

actually those laws and similar were on the books in puritan america and after america's founding and the constitution. go check out the laws of new england and delaware.

ps. the bible doesn't recommend the stoning of prostitutes, only adulterers or if the prostitute is the daughter of a high priest.

Great. Good luck with that.

[AtiliusRegulus]

Yes, just like unruly <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">children</a> and prostitutes should have the option of being stoned to death (YOUR religion).

actually those laws and similar were on the books in puritan america and after america's founding and the constitution. go check out the laws of new england and delaware.

ps. the bible doesn't recommend the stoning of prostitutes, only adulterers or if the prostitute is the daughter of a high priest.

Great. Good luck with that.

good luck with syphillis, high healthcare costs, high crime, easy divorce, child support, alimony, inflation and when you are old enjoy the nursing home your kids are gonna put you in.
you humanists create a world of hell, then you distract those living in it with entertainment, then parade yourselves as creating heaven and freedom.

[Ghostown42]

What if a rapist wants to practice his Christianity, and wants to force his victim(s) to marry him?