"Bargeorgos" <student@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4173c674$1_2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Atheists like to quote the nonexistant separation of church and state
clause
> in the constitution while ignoring the clause that gaurentees one the
right
> to freely exercise ther religion.
>
That statement is false. The clause that is often quoted is the
"Establishment" clause. It was President Thomas Jefferson who first
described the "wall of separation" between Church and State.
While people are free to practice their religious beliefs in America,
there
ARE some limitations. For example, religious rites that involve forbidden
practices are still illegal. You cannot legally sacrifice humans, even if
your religion calls for that. You cannot run around ****d in the park, if
your religion calls for Satanic rites.
You also cannot IMPOSE your ideology upon others. It is one thing to be
free to practice your own religious rites, but it is another thing to
force
others to comply with them. Mandatory Sunday store closings are good
examples.
If you define "freedom to practice your religion" as requiring the rest of
us not to shop, go to any entertainment functions, or act in any other way
that you consider disrespectful toward your particular religion, then no,
you have no such "right."
It does not matter what percentage of people do not profess any religious
belief--you still are barred by our constitution, by subsequent Supreme
Court opinions, and by other federal, state and local legislation from
IMPOSING your beliefs upon others.
Unfortunately, our country has an unfortunate history of abuse by persons
of
faith. They killed people in Massachusetts, for example, after having
charged them with witchcraft. I find your position curious: you
characterize yourself as part of a group that is persecuted by a small
minority of atheists. That makes for lively debate, but you really ought
to
check your history.
Your freedom to believe requires that I have the same freedom--NOT to
believe. It is not the function of the State to force me to accept your
religious doctrines--just as it is not the function of the State to deny
you
the right to hold those doctrines.
What is so unfair about that?
> >
> >> BIGOT: a person who is intolerant of ones creed, belief or opinion.
> >
> > That defines most religious zealots. Strangely, they can't see their
own
> > faults, they prefer to think of themselves as "persecuted" even when
they
> > are in power!
>
> It seems also to better describe atheists. The ACLU spends millions on
> lawsuits every year to remove any and all public displays or observances
> that have any Christian connotation.
Another of your factually-incorrect allegations. The ACLU and others have
protested against religious displays by the STATE, but I know of no one,
most of all the ACLU, that has ever suggested that private individuals,
cor****ations or organizations cannot express a religious conviction by
erecting a display on PRIVATELY-OWNED PROPERTY. There is a subtle, but
significant, difference.
How would you feel if Muslims were allowed to put up a display in front of
your local town hall, in tribute to Allah? Or what if the Church of Satan
wanted to set up a five-pointed star in the middle of a city park? Not
with
my tax dollars. . .
What is so unfair about that?
> This also includes the right of
> Christians to speak freely about their beliefs in certain situations,
Yeah, like that religious fanatic that stood on the sidewalk in front of
the
bus terminal with a bullhorn, preaching to us who were waiting for the bus
that we were all going to hell unless we "accepted Jesus Christ?"
Or the parents that want to get around the Supreme Court ruling on school
prayer by demanding a "moment of silence" at the beginning of the school
day?
I could cite other examples of relizious zealots that whine about their
"rights" being denied them, while all the while they trample upon the
rights
of others that do not wish to hear their messages.
>or even to use public facilities in the same manner as secular
organizations.
Like having "Bible Clubs" in public schools? Who are you guys kidding?
Since when has the use of a school classroom become such a big deal? You
just want to slip into the public school system, where you will find a
captive audience of young people.
It is not the duty of the State to provide you with a captive audience of
children. You are fooling no one with tat argument that you should have
the
right to use public facilities to promote religious beliefs.
> Atheists compose less than 10% of the population, but try to impose
their
> lack of belief in a deity on the other 90%. You tell me who the bigot
is.
>
Yet another misstatement of fact. Most athiests don't go around imposing
their viewpoints on anyone. It is pushy evangelical Christians that are
guilty of that practice. When is the last time an Athiest knocked on
anyone's door, handing them a tract, and then tried to engage in a
religious
discussion? When is the last time an Athiest asked for a "donation?"
When
is the last time that an Athiest appeared in strange robes, or garb with a
religious association, and began teaching others as though he had some
special authority from an Almighty?
Again, it is YOU who are guilty of the offense, and you twist the facts
around and try to make yourself look like the victim. Poor baby, why
can't
you just shut up and leave us alone?
|
