ZEFRANK.COM - message board  

Go Back   ZEFRANK.COM - message board > FAST CHAT
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 12 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 01-16-2005, 09:43 PM   #16
Frieda
in limbo
 
Frieda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 19,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klynne
I had to google the head covering thing. This is what I came up with:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/rs/s-045.htm
here they teach in the mosques that it's not ok for women to look attractive to men. anything that contributes to that should be covered by clothing. so they just wear the hijab because it doesnt fvck up parents' beliefs and goes with the quran too.

personally, i think this thing is different in every country. turkey, for example, is far more liberal when it comes to this than all the turkish people in my country together. it's a way of bonding as well. and that's why the rule is there, to try and reduce the we-they feeling.
__________________
zoek waar je wil, maar het zit in jezelf

oh yeah
Frieda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 03:35 AM   #17
Ewe Focker
Registered User
 
Ewe Focker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Right of the Left Coast
Posts: 5
Calm down, it is nadda a big deal...................YET

I don't know, I am atheist, however I really have no problem with the whole "one nation under God" statement that is literally everywhere in our country. Is it really that big a deal, nobody is forcing me to convert or even recognize a religion. If someone really wants to pray or be religious, that's cool, as long as they don't f*ck w/ me or try (with very much effort) to convert me. To each his own. I would rather live in a country w/ a so/so religous base than a society of free roaming atheists who don't give a f*ck or don't subscribe to some value system, watch the movie Suburbia..... Live and let live.......

So if someone wants to cover there head, wear a turban or wear hand made clothes, let em..

Now, if people become fanatical and expect or even require me to participate, then the gloves are off.
__________________
"Having sex is like playing bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand."
-Woody Allen

Last edited by Ewe Focker : 01-17-2005 at 03:42 AM.
Ewe Focker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 04:53 AM   #18
madasacutsnake
no more nice girl
 
madasacutsnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Large Marge
I think that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge, courtrooms, the oath one takes before testifying and money.
I had to swear my testimony on the Bible. They didn't offer me any other option. What a hoot.
__________________
He really shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all.
madasacutsnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 05:14 AM   #19
Large Marge
monkey
 
Large Marge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The middle
Posts: 2,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by madasacutsnake
I had to swear my testimony on the Bible. They didn't offer me any other option. What a hoot.
I would have asked for a cookbook.

Yes, and what would be the point of making an athiest swear to tell the truth on a bible?
__________________
Truth serves only a world that lives by it.
Large Marge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 05:33 AM   #20
madasacutsnake
no more nice girl
 
madasacutsnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,054
The silly part is that the Bible is very specific about not swearing on the Bible.
__________________
He really shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all.
madasacutsnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 05:34 AM   #21
xfox
slightly effective
 
xfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: >>>
Posts: 2,404
Gatsby and Freida have done their homework.

IMO it doesn't matter what you do, but it does matter what you call it.

Islamic women are terribly repressed and if the Islamic men like it that way, too bad, because 50% of their population is drastically underutilized.
xfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 06:53 AM   #22
Large Marge
monkey
 
Large Marge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The middle
Posts: 2,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by madasacutsnake
The silly part is that the Bible is very specific about not swearing on the Bible.
Really? Which book/chapter?
__________________
Truth serves only a world that lives by it.
Large Marge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 07:24 AM   #23
madasacutsnake
no more nice girl
 
madasacutsnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,054
Matt 5:33 - 37

I challenge you to find a Bible quote saying the opposite. Should take you say, 24 seconds.
__________________
He really shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all.
madasacutsnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 07:33 AM   #24
trisherina
meretricious dilettante
 
trisherina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,068
amen
__________________
Because how we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives. -- Annie Dillard
trisherina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2005, 07:46 AM   #25
Large Marge
monkey
 
Large Marge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The middle
Posts: 2,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by madasacutsnake
Matt 5:33 - 37

I challenge you to find a Bible quote saying the opposite. Should take you say, 24 seconds.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I'm curious because I'd never heard anyone say that the bible says you can't swear on the bible.

K, I found the passage, and there's plenty in there about not swearing, but nothing about not swearing on a bible.

Perhaps I have the wrong version?
__________________
Truth serves only a world that lives by it.
Large Marge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2005, 04:04 AM   #26
Large Marge
monkey
 
Large Marge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The middle
Posts: 2,284
Am I missing something?
__________________
Truth serves only a world that lives by it.
Large Marge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2005, 04:47 AM   #27
madasacutsnake
no more nice girl
 
madasacutsnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,054
I don't know why you think that I think you were disagreeing with me. I was just poking fun at the numerous contradictions in the Bible.

If you read through the text, it asks you to swear only "on yourself" or "by yourself" or something akin to that, depending on which version you have.

You're hard work sometimes, Marge.
__________________
He really shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all.
madasacutsnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2005, 05:13 AM   #28
Large Marge
monkey
 
Large Marge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The middle
Posts: 2,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by madasacutsnake
I don't know why you think that I think you were disagreeing with me. I was just poking fun at the numerous contradictions in the Bible.

If you read through the text, it asks you to swear only "on yourself" or "by yourself" or something akin to that, depending on which version you have.

You're hard work sometimes, Marge.
Yes, that's what my last boyfriend said, too.

I thought your posting was serious - I didn't catch the sarcasm.

My apologies.
__________________
Truth serves only a world that lives by it.
Large Marge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2006, 12:01 AM   #29
FredFlash
monkey
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatsby
Sounds like a good ruling to me, Constitutionally.
The First Amendment is bifurcated into two parts: the "Establishment" clause (which prohibits the creation of a state church), and the "Exercise" clause (which prohibits the state from impeding religious free exercise). By far most 1st Amendment cases in the church/state/school area are Exercise clause issues.
The word "religion" is only used once in the First Amendment. If "religion" in the first clause means "state church", then that it means in the second. All you have the right to the free exercise of is a state church.


The "No Creation Of A State Church" Interpretation Of The Establishment Clause Is Hogwash!

Counterfeit Christians who seek to unite Church and State have been pushing the “No National Church” interpretation of the establishment clause since it sprang from the from the mischievous mind of Representative Laban Wheaton (Connecticut) twenty-two years after the First Amendment was written. Laban Wheaton was a Federalist who made no secret of his desire for the government to assume civil authority over the duty that we owe to the Creator. The first phase of his devilish plan was to expand the Congressional Chaplainships to impose a government established religion over the ten miles square of the District of Columbia.

Wheaton and Representative Timothy Pitkin (Massachusetts) challenged President James Madison’s 1811 veto of a bill incorporating an Episcopal Church in Alexandria in the District of Columbia. President Madison believed the bill established rules and procedures, that could not be amended, to govern the selection and removal of the minister of the church. Madison claimed it violated the establishment clause.

Wheaton argued that Madison's view of the establishment clause was wrong because Congress had already established two religions “by electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains.” Wheaton deemed the meaning of the establishment clause to be of very great consequence.

Note: I suspect that the establishment of the Congressional Chaplains was supported by some to merely undermine the Separation of Church and State. The Congressional Chaplains were not established because the Congressmen were pious Christians and wanted to attend religious services conducted by the Chaplains. By all accounts, only a very few Congressmen actually attended the services conducted by the Chaplains.

Representative Wheaton complained that the people of the District of Columbia were never going to have any religion because it had been entirely excluded from the ten square mile area of the District. Wheaton apparently held the twisted notion that religion established by God (instead of the government) was not really religion.

James Madison, according to his writings, actually agreed with Wheaton that Congress had (improperly) established two religions in 1789 by creating the Congressional Chaplainships. Madison was decades ahead of most American's thinking with regard to religious liberty and perceived evil lurking under the plausible disguise of the Congressional Chaplains. Madison was a genuine Christian and knew that the serpent was very subtle and the wicked one grows his evil up from small beginnings.

Madison knew that to set up an official national religion Congress would have to 1) select a group of Americans, 2) select a religion for them, 3) elect some ministers of that religion and 4) make a law to establish the people's duty to support the ministers. The establishment of the Chaplainships was accomplished by Congress 1) selected a group of Americans, 2) choosing two religions, 3) elected two ministers of those faiths and 4) making a law establishing the duty of the taxpayers to support the ministers.

To James Madison, and many others, the only difference in the two Congressional religions established in 1789 and an official national religion, was the number of ministers that had to be supported by the taxpayers and the number of Americans covered by the establishment. Madison feared that every provision short of the strict Christian principle of Separation of Religion and Government would leave crevices through which evil men (like Roy Moore, David Barton and D. James Kennedy) would attempt to introduce the seeds of bigotry which could grow into persecution which Madison believed were a like monster, that feeding and thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine and human.

James Madison was Superman when it came to the rights of conscience. The same House of Representatives that voted 100 to 0 to pass the bill that Madison vetoed, also voted 71 to 29 to sustain the Presidents veto. The “No National Church” Interpretation of Laban Wheaton was rejected in favor of the “Total Separation of Religion and Government” interpretation of the President. James Madison was thus established as the authority on the meaning of the religion clauses.

During the Early Days of the Republic it was always James Madison's interpretation of the establishment clause that prevailed in every dispute over its meaning. These early disputes included the following:

Dispute Over Presidential Religious Recommendations

James Madison’s view that government religious recommendations were improper prevailed in 70 of the first 74 years of the young Republic. President Madison made the mistake of trying to accommodate two Congressional requests for proclamations during the War of 1812 while at the same time making it clear that he claimed no civil authority over religion. President Madison claimed that his proclamations did not actually contain religious recommendations.

Note: In 1814, it had been twenty-five years since Congress had requested the President to issue a religious recommendation. This strongly suggests that the First Congress did not believe that government religious recommendations were a good thing except in extraordinary rare circumstances.

The results of Madison's wartime proclamations, according to Representative Gulian Verplanck (New York), were malice and bitterness. The Gospel was employed to hurl sarcasm and rekindle partisan rage.

(To be continued)
FredFlash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2006, 12:02 AM   #30
FredFlash
monkey
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13
(continued)

A lesson was learned and every President from 1816 to 1863 flatly refused to issue religious proclamations. In 1832, Henry Clay and the Counterfeit Christians in the Senate took advantage of an impending epidemic and moved for Congress to pass a join resolution requesting President Andrew Jackson to issue a prayer and fasting proclamation. Clay's resolution passed in the Senate but it failed in the House, where Gulian Verplanck of New York closed his famous speech by recommending that Congress " leave prayer to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not the bidding of the State."

Congressional Prayer

Contrary to the widespread myth, there were no daily opening prayers in the First U S. Congress. If you have any evidence of prayer in the official records of the First Congress, please tell me where it is.

Article III of the Northwestern Ordinance

There was a dispute over whether Article III of the Northwestern Ordinance obligated the government to support religion in the Ohio Territory. The U. S. Congress believed that it did not and several attempts to enact legislation to "give legal effect" to Article III never made it out of committee.

The Sunday Mail Delivery Dispute

The Sunday Mail dispute raged from 1810 to the development of the telegraph and railroad train systems. The subject of the controversy was an 1810 post office law that required the transportation and opening of the mail on Sundays. There were numerous attempts by the “Christian Party” to convince Congress to repeal the 1810l law, but they all failed. Representative Colonel Johnson of Kentucky, chairman of the House Post Office Committee, issued a famous report in 1830 that adopted James Madison’s view that religion was exempt from the cognizance of the government. One of the many petitions from citizens supporting the 1810 Post Office law declared that the establishment clause was intended to, “Leave the religion of the people as free as the air they breathe from government influence of any kind.”

Ten Commandment Displays in Federal Courts

The 1789 Judiciary Act did not include a requirement for the display of the Ten Commandments in Federal Courts. I am not convinced that such a suggestion was actually introduced in Congress.

During the Early Years there were no disputes over “one Nation under God” in the pledge or “In God We Trust” on the money because the Federal Government respected God’s authority over the conscience of men and did not muck about issuing religious advice to the people.

Sources of Information:

Read Laban Wheaton’s argument for the No National Religion interpretation at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=489

Read the official record of the 71 to 29 vote in 1811 in the House of Representatives in favor of James Madison’s interpretation of the establishment clause at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=496

Read New York Representative Gulion Verplacnk’s 1832 speech on the subject of Presidential Religious Recommendations at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=490

Read the 1801 petition citizens and inhabitants of Wayne County, in the Northwest Territory praying for the support of the Gospel and for erecting the buildings necessary for the celebration of divine service. http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?....db&recNum=435

Read about the 1802 announcement of Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut that he would ask leave to bring in a bill the nest day to carry into effect the support for schools and religion in the Northwestern Territory. The official records show that Tracy did not attempt to introduce the bill. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...11.db&recNum=8

Read about the 1802 appointment of a House committee to inquire into the matter of support of religion within the Territory of the United States Northwest of the river Ohio. The committee never reported the question to the floor. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...069&linkText=1

Read about the Bill reported out of committee (but not passed) in 1828 that would have authorized the use of federal land in the State of Ohio for the support of religion.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...199&linkText=1

Fred
FredFlash is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -3. The time now is 04:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.