Man Of Tomorrow

Hey guys I have a question. Is it a big deal to have any type of religious symbol in a courthouse or public building. Some examples would be the Nativity Scene on the city hall building in Berkley, California. I'm a christian and I don't find it at all offensive to have religious symbols on public property. I mean, I guess to me its not that big of a deal because there could always be far worse things on a building, like offensive graffitti or an offensive word.

My question is, has god become too offensive in this country?

And are we seeing a push to rid American society of god?

Also, why are we more intrigued by dark subject matter and the devil?

Lastly, if we are trying to be a secular society, and given all the atheists that are about these days. Why do we blame god for everything in the world if we know that with good comes evil. Is it fair to blame god for everything when we know theres a devl as well? Thanks

highway80west

You ask the ACLU that question, and they will tell you that it is a big deal to them.

__________________
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psalm 119:105

Katczinsky

I don't find it offensive...but then again there are a lot of laws that when broken, don't seem offensive to me.

It just depends on whether you think your actions are moral enough to break the law.

I also don't see the big deal with just leaving religion out of the state.

Has it become so offensive for people to leave their religion as something personal?

I'm not necessarily 'offended' to see a nativity scene outside my courthouse, but I am when children in a public school are forced to pray...no matter what religion. Likewise, I find it greatly troublesome when tax dollars are going toward any religion, as Thomas Jefferson eloquently put it:

"...to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;..."
Thomas Jefferson in, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786)

No. Just from the state.

Oh, you are? Well, even as a Godless liberal atheist, I can't say I have that problem....

Yeah, those damn uppity atheists...

Because, if God is all-knowing and timeless, he knowingly created the devil and evil too.

You're not saying that the devil has ultimate power over God are you?

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

tristanrobin

__________________
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

"know this is EXACTLY why people think you shouldnt have equal rights" 2/11/08 Grace

Ralph

One would assume that all atheists, if they are so offended by tax dollars funding religion, they might complain about the religion of "DARWINIAN EVOLUTION" funded by the State with no objection, could it be that it is because that it is based upon the religion of materialism? Evolution has never been proven only speculated, yet it has become an obsession by the secular world to limit our understanding of mans origin based solely on this "Idea", to the exclusiveness of all others that are just as much based in science as evolution. The courts have even limited their decisions to include only two theories....Evolution or creation, when in reality, there can not be evolution without first something was created, because nothing can create itself. A paradox of liberal logic? Sense intelligent design explains much more that evolution ever can in the basic cognation to reason. Ralph

Katczinsky

Darwinian evolution is science, therefore belongs in the science room. To say that evolution is in conflict with your religious beliefs and you consider religion to take precedent is one thing, but to say evolution is not in conflict with a creationist view is another. The former would suggest that you're just going to have to either live up to the fact that creationism as perceived is false or in an inane attempt of irrational denial claim that science is false. However, if you're indeed going to accept the latter (evolution is not in conflict with creationism) then you're going to have to accept the fact that they're not 'competing theories', and therefore there is no imperative to somehow attempt to trump the other. The simple matter of fact, in either scenario, evolution is science and creationism is religion, and religion does not belong in the science classroom. If you're so irresponsible as to teach your children that when they come into conflict, that religion always takes precedent over science and empiricism, then you do so in the privacy of your own time, and in those institutions relevant to religion, not science.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

pensacola_niceman

Ralph,
Try not to expose your intellect so quickly by using unneccessary diction and end up misspelling it anyway. Also, most people here can see right through someone trying to look a great thinker by using text that might othewise win awards on a senior term paper.

Most issues discussed here fall into a far more butthead level of thinking that the majority of Americans can truly understand. As for this particular topic, the bottom line is that it is only Christain religous symbols that are so offensive to our sensitive minorities right now. It's OK to erect some monument that Muslims and burning duck worshippers would appreciate, but highly offensive to put a nativity scene in your front yard because that would show a lack of respect for our recent Somali immigrants that like to shit in sinks and pray to Allah 5 times a day.

fxashun

Damn PN. We'll save some Christmas for you for when you get back. Forget having an edge, you're one of those 4 bladed razors.

__________________

onthefence

I got some extra Christmas for you too, and some Harpoon Winter warmer.......

__________________
"We could not now take time for further search or consideration, our victuals being much spent, especially our beer." - William Bradford



Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.....

Now offering premium membership for only $25.00!! Click here to get started.!

Ralph

Yes, that explains a lot, that must be why a Federal Judge ordered the removal of a label form school textbooks in Georgia that states that "The Theory of Evolution is only a theory and not fact". Some wish to give a "Theory" the same value of truth as a "Fact" by making the slight of hand semantical claim that a theory presents facts. If this were true the product of these facts also would be a fact, but the real FACT is 0 + 0 still equals 0. A theory is only a speculation, no matter how one wishes to dress it, if it were indeed a fact of science there would be a LAW OF EVOLUTION, not an unprovable idea dressed in the garments of science actual that is based upon empirical evidence. Many claim thus but none as of yet have produced none. Sure, there is empirical evidence concerning "evolution" but all such empirical evidence is found within the real science of microbiology and biogenesis, not in the arena of macroevolution and abiogenesis if there is empirical evidence of facts would someone please present them, by not robbing them from the confirmed theory of microevolution that has never been proven to break the species barrier of biogensis.

I would like for anyone to present the empirical proof all along the time line of the supposed theory of evolution. Many claim they have such all the way to the big bang that provides empirical evidence for the gestation of life coming about from random natural circumstance. If this is so would someone please present the empirical evidence for the following. We shall begin from the inverted process that Darwinian proponents take and begin with the Big Bang that states the universe is the product of natural science without intelligent design of anything.

a.) Please present the empirical evidence for the mass/matter that gestated the "Big Bang". To claim that the universe is the product of nature there had to be a cause and effect as defined by the laws of physics. Please provide the evidence that the gestation of the big bang was not a product of creation. As defined by other theories (E=Mc2) Time and Space did not begin until after the Big Bang. If this is true then whatever gestated the Big Bang exists outside of time. To be a pure product of nature one would have to come to the absurd conclusion that what ever gestated the Big Bang created itself(it created itself before it existed..really?), or it is eternal and has always existed. If this were true according to the laws of thermodynamics the entire universe would be the same temperature as the universe having already existed would have expended it usable energy (entropy), But as evidenced the universe could not be eternal as the Sun is not the same temperature as the earth...is it?
So the empirical evidence points to the theory that the universe is winding down and expending energy and will one day come to end. Logic dictates that if something has an ending it also had to have a beginning. Please explain this beginning in empirical science without creation being involved.

b.) Next, would someone please present the empirical evidence, not hypothetical speculation, as to how Hydrogen mixed with smaller amounts of Helium began cooling to produce solid masses of entirety different elements, such as iron, nickel,...etc. And magically produced not only the many suns of billions of galaxies but many solid matter planents. Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

c.) Please present the empirical evidence that life was produced from the magically produced solid matter that had cooled to produce the earth, sun, and solar system. Also present the evidence of just how this life once that it was created, existed as being the first and only life without another source of biological fuel (food) for billions of years until it magically evolved by gaining knowledge to morph into a superior or larger product (without having another life source to draw this knowledge from).

d.) Please present the empirical proof that would explain the sudden appearance of macrobiological life without any apparent ancestral lineage found in the fossils before the Cambrian explosion. Not hypothetical speculation that only evolutionists can consider as valid as claiming that apparently these evidences are hidden in the evolutionary fossil remains despite the fact that mircobiological life fossils was found before the appearance of Marco life(yet it must be there despite the clear evidence of microlife, marco is still unobservable, and the check is in the mail). Proceed please. Here is a link to start Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

e.) Please present the empirical evidence of science that suggests that macrolife has ever evolved from one species to another. Provide the reproducible evidence of experiment that can be observed in nature that has proven a valid transistional life fossil having been found to evolved outside the species barrier offered by the theory of biogenesis and mircoevolution( that which happens on a small scale yet is contained with the species of like kind, which is contained in all biological life and its DNA to allow for adaptation to environment). Microevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Biogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

f.) Please provide the empirical evidence that suggests life can be a product of non-living matter. Show the evidence of science where this has been reproducible in experimentation or observed in nature. As I said before take any example of life, either plant or animal, disassemble it in the lab and place all the parts back together and produce life again in that subject. Proceed please. Produce these evidence which you boast of having in the facts of theory that must conclude that this theory is correct. I'll be waiting for empirical evidence not that which is produced from between some secular scientists ears but that which is reproducible and observable, "I'll be waiting for those that do not consider themselves butterheads to present this claimed evidence" Ralph