An Atheist in an ocean of Theists

Breakdown,

Bigotry, Discrimination, intolerance and oppression by religion, ALL breed conflict.  If the church knew it's place in our society, that being the private lives of those that wish to take part, then there wouldn't be any issues.  However, christians don't realize that many of us don't even recognize your gawd!!  We don't want the tenets of your religion shoved down our throats.  We can only hope that the supreme court will get rid of that ridiculousness.  ;)

Don

p.s. I am going to have my say whether you approve it or not.

As per the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, the Church has no say.  Legislators that consider the church are not doing their job.  Like judges, their are suppose to be impartial to unconstitutional agenda.  They are suppose to only consider that which is legal for them to consider and nothing else.  Laws respecting an establishment of religion, are not allowed.  PERIOD!    In the U.S. only in Utah do we even see things like this in the news.   Wake up people.  Your 1st Amendment is being violated.

-D-

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights. It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, as it guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, it requires that a wall of separation be maintained between church and state. It reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The roots of the First Amendment can be traced to a bill written by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) in 1777 and proposed to the Virginia Legislature in 1779. ₁ It guaranteed freedom of (and from) religion. After an impassioned speech by James Madison, and after some amendments, it became law on 1786-JAN-16. ₂

In the spring of 1778, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia, PA. They resolved three main religious controversies. They:

• Decided that there would be no religious test, oath or other requirement for any federal elected office
• Allowed Quakers and others to affirm (rather than swear) their oaths of office
• Refrained from recognizing the religion of Christianity, or one of its denominations, as an established, state church.

But there was no specific guarantee of religious freedom.

Jefferson was pleased with the constitution, but felt it was incomplete. He pushed for legislation that would guarantee individual rights, including what he felt was the prime guarantee: freedom of and from religion. Madison promised to promote such a bill, in order to gain support for the ratification of the constitution by the State of Virginia. In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights.

The text of the First Amendment:

Some early draft amendments to the religion section were:

• James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
• House Select Committee, JUL-28 "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,"
• Samuel Livermore, AUG-15 "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."
• House version, AUG-20 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." (Moved by Fisher Ames)
• Initial Senate version, SEP-3 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
• Final Senate version, SEP-9 "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
• Conference Committee "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The final wording was accepted by the House of Representatives on 1789-SEP-24; and by the Senate on 1789-SEP-25. It was ratified by the States in 1791.

Shortly after Thomas Jefferson was elected president, some Baptists from Connecticut asked that he declare a national day of fasting in order to help the country recover from a bitterly fought presidential campaign. He disagreed, feeling that the Federal government should not recognize a day set aside for religious reasons. In his reply of 1802-JAN-1, he stated:"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The "wall of separation" term has become a common expression to describe the concept pioneered in the United States that the government and churches should keep out of each other's way. Unfortunately, this has been interpreted by many teachers, principals and school boards so strictly in recent years that religion has become a forbidden topic in many public schools. As a result, many public schools have become religion-free zones. Many children are only partially educated; they remain ignorant of the immense impact, both for good and for evil, that religion has had on the American culture throughout history.

Religious minorities frequently suffer a loss of freedom in those countries which do not have a wall of separation. Some extreme examples in the past decade have been:

• Laws interpreted as requiring a divorce if a husband writes a book that is critical of the established religion.
• Capital punishment as punishment for speech critical of the state religion.
• Capital punishment for those who change their religious faith, unless it is to the state religion.
• Laws prohibiting women from working outside the home.

In 1986, on the 200th anniversary of Virginia's call for a Bill of Rights, 200 American leaders signed the Williamsburg Charter reaffirming their belief in the importance of the First Amendment. In 1995, President Clinton delivered an important speech affirming the importance of religious freedom.

The First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN conducts a public opinion poll on an annual basis. The results for the year 2000 show that support for first amendment freedoms is not particularly strong in some areas.  First Amendment Center director, Kenneth Paulson,  said that "While Americans respect the First Amendment as an ideal, increasingly they're ambivalent when it protects offensive ideas or troubling speech or art or music." The results for their poll taken in 2000 show:

• Two thirds of American adults favor the banning of hate speech. This troubles many civil rights supporters. As Ken Paulson said: "The problem with that is it's so easy to characterize what someone else says that offends you as 'hate speech.' "
• 53% favor the banning of speech critical of religions. [Author's note: That is particularly troubling because it would criminalize even the most innocuous criticism of racism, sexism, and homophobia policies established by religious groups.] Paulson said. "That's an astonishing number. Are we really ready to say that you can't talk about religion in the public sector because it might offend someone of another faith? "
• "37% of those polled couldn't name even one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Those freedoms are: the right to worship, speak, publish, assemble, and raise grievances with the government." ₄

1. James Davidson and Os Guiness, editors, "Articles of Faith, Articles of Peace: The Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy". Hunter, Washington DC (1990).
2. E.S. Gaustad, "Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation", Harper & Row, New York NY, (1987)
3. A.A. Lipscomb & A.E. Bergh, editors, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson", Washington, (1907), Vol. 16, P. 281
4. Dave Clark, "Survey: First Amendment support waning," at: http://www.family.org/ 

• The Freedom Forum Online web site provides detailed coverage of First Amendment issues. See: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/ 
• "First Amendment Cyber-Tribune" is hosted by the Casper Star-Tribune. It is an extensive site, describing all aspects of First Amendment rights. It also lists dozens of free-speech web sites and groups. See: http://fact.trib.com/ (Last updated in 2004)
• "First Amendment Center" promotes consensus on matters of religious expression in the schools, and religious liberty in American life. See: http://www.fac.org/
• TeAchnology is a "web portal for educators." They U.S. Constitution Teaching Theme page has many hyperlinks to Constitution resources at: http://www.teach-nology.com/

Copyright ? 1996 to 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2006-MAR-02
Author: B.A. Robinson

The previous information was take from the following website:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm

also see:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a
mendI_religions53.html

To view more from Pat,  please visit: 

http://www.liveleak.com/user/patcondell

More on http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com 

This is an interview with the author, Peter Joseph.

part 1.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=f3E8hZzfF4Y&feature=rela
ted

part 2.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gz5QGq2Q8Rs&feature=rela
ted

part 3.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jx5_ZGoJE84&feature=rela
ted

part 4.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y3T-PtgAjts&feature=rela
ted

-D-

I am glad to see that Texas courts were fair with the FLDS people.  While it is unfortunate that some victims of a crime may go unpunished, the rights of everyone involved were preserved. 

I know it is hard for some people to swallow, but over-zealous, self-righteous pseudo-justice is not the answer.  We all have rights, including criminals.  You can't just uproot and entire community and violate their search and seizure rights,  based on one reported incident by a person that wasn't even telling the entire truth.   GOOD FOR THE TEXAS JUDICIAL SYSTEM!

In my opinion, it was just one Texas Baptist Church led effort to pick on the FLDS Church.  After all, you can't have those heathens gettin away with something their actually constitutionally protected in doing.

-D- 

I share a lot of my views with this gentleman.  He is very intelligent and in my opinion, has a strong grasp on truth and reality.  Pat Condell is a man that shares my passion to get religion out of government.  His country, England, has the same issues with religion invading their liberty as we do here.  A fellow Atheist, Pat is my personal hero in the fight against religious oppression.

Click Here to see all of Pat's videos

Enjoy!

 -D-

I was watching the story regarding the FLDS Compound Raid in Texas and I notice the children being removed were loaded on Baptist Church Buses.  What a way for the church to say, "Hey everyone look, We're saving the heathen children".    Shame on them.

-D-

Bible Class Lawsuit Ends With Agreement

I am curious, what part of seperation of church and state, do these morons not understand?  If these people want these kinds of classes taught, GO TO CHURCH!   These are public schools ran by the state. 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Seems pretty clear to me.  We can't make any laws that respect it.  Therefore you can't enforce classes that teach it in public, on the same token, if you wanna build a church and do it on your own time and dollar, go for it.   Man I am getting sick of religious zealots trying to take over the country and make everyone abide by their dogma.  YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE YOUR DOGMA!  Get it through your thick skulls. 

I won't even begin talking about the stuff that goes on here in this state.  If I did, I might pop a circuit.  I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter though.  Feel free to bring any of it up.

-D-

Zeitgeist

If you have about 2 hours of spare time (what's that?), then take the time to watch this movie.  All you need is an open mind.  Just click the link beloiw.

zeitgeist

This movie gives you a different perspective on reality.  Am I saying I totally agree with the movie?  NO!  However, I do agree with a lot of it.  Check it out and let me know.  The opening/title sequence is kinda long, it behooves you to wait it out.  This movie is very cool.

WARNING: VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC CONTENT AND MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR ALL VIEWERS. 

-Don-

Why are we flying our flags half-mast for someone that wasn't serving the country and or state in a official capacity?  Mr. Hinckley does not deserve this honor, no more than he deserves an Olymic Medal or a Pulitzer Prize.  That honor is for those serving the state as a whole and not a religious organization that's doing humanitarian work for the sake of public relations and recruitment.  He served the church.  His accomplishments did not directly help the federal government in anyway. 

As a veteran, I am trully offended that such an honor is misused.  I find that giving a religious figure an honor that isn't due, cheapens the honor for everyone that does deserve it. 

I will not deny that Mr. Hinckley did some outstanding things for people.  However, he did these things as a representative of his church.  He was not serving in my best interest.  He was not serving in the interests of all the other Americans and Utahns that do not follow nbsp;dogma/faith.  

I believe whole-heartedly that Governor Hunstman, an LDS Church Member, misused his power and disrespected all those that actually deserve the honor.   This is just another proof that the church has it's nose where it doesn't belong.

Sincerely,

Donald Cole