The cross on top of a church is not and advertisement?
BULLSHIT!
Which candidate are you supposed to vote for if you see a cross on a building? Which way are you supposed to vote for on ballot propositions if you see a cross on a building?
Brian37 wrote:
I used to live in Lynchburg Va. If the UU church had a polling place in it you would damned well bet that the Falwell followers would object to that placement.
My point to you is that it is an indorcement. Any idiot with a brain seeing a logo, wheither it is Ronald McDonnald or Burger King, doesnt need a slide rule to figure out what is going on.
If the polling place happens to be in a church, there is no endorsement. You don't need a slide rule to see it, you need an active imagination and a persecution complex to see what you see.
Brian37 wrote:
Christians bitched when a Mosque was used as a polling place a couple years ago, AND I AGREE!
Of course you agree with small minded bigotry.
Brian37 wrote:
IF reffs were allowed to wear the jersey of their favorite team while officiating the game, how much confidence should the oposing team have in the play calling?
To make your comparison accurate, you need the poll workers to wear GOP elephants on their sweaters during the election, and handing out Republican voting guides. Or DEM donkeys on their sweaters and handing out Democrat voting guides.
What team do you think is being urged while, in a choice between a Democrat and a Republican (and any 3rd parties that happen to be on the ballot) the voting takes place in the real estate and four walls that happen to belong to a church?
Brian37 wrote:
LET ME STRESS THIS IMPLICITLY, I dont care if you are putting a voting booth in a Mosque or Synogogue or Atheist Station, when you start doing that, you are giving credaince to the argument of favortism and impropriety .
Only if you have a persecution complex and are looking for reasons to say "I'm a victim."
If you insist that the extreme fundy who is religiously forbidden from going on the grounds of other religions even for secular purposes is being descriminated against, then our laws against murder discriminate against those whose religious beliefs mandate human sacrifice.
If you want to pretend there is no agenda behind you, keep it up. And if more and more Christians start doing that, it wont stop at polling places being in Churchs, it will be a cross on the flag and a cross on the Capital dome.
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:39 pm
Dont insult me by accusing me of playing victim.
You need to go back and read your world history and know that when you dont keep an eye on religion and you allow it to mix with government you end up with a theocracy. THAT is not being paranoid or playing victim. It is maintaining viggilance so that history does not repeat itself.
You may see this as benign, I dont. I see it as chipping away at the First Amendment.
If you want to pretend there is no agenda behind you, keep it up. And if more and more Christians start doing that, it wont stop at polling places being in Churchs, it will be a cross on the flag and a cross on the Capital dome.
Brian, can you get back to the issue, though, of whether a church as a polling place violates the Establishment clause.
It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The only way I could see this violating the Establishment clause is if districts wrote a law saying that the only valid polling places from here on would be churches.
Or if it was stated by a church polling place that in order to enter the doors, you must bow to the Virgin Mary, and the govenrment being okay with that. (My suspicion is that the election comissions put very strict rules on what the churches can do when they serve as polling places.)
In fact, I see the opposite here. Churches - like schools - are being used because they have big rooms and parking. They are being treated as any other building that is equipped to serve the public.
I don't think churches are being singled out because they are churches (if that were the case, ALL polling places would be churches), but rather because they are large buildings that have parking and which are willing to serve as polling places.
Think of it this way: would you have a problem if a few priests volunteered to be precinct monitors and monitor voting?
Probably not, because they are not picked AS priests, but they are picked as citizens who want to help out on election day.
That is the way I see this: there are schools used for polling, and there are churches. What do the two have in common? They are big, they have ample parking, and they are able and willing to serve as polling places.
THAT IS IT.
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:12 am
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
Brian wrote:
If you want to pretend there is no agenda behind you, keep it up. And if more and more Christians start doing that, it wont stop at polling places being in Churchs, it will be a cross on the flag and a cross on the Capital dome.
Brian, can you get back to the issue, though, of whether a church as a polling place violates the Establishment clause.
It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The only way I could see this violating the Establishment clause is if districts wrote a law saying that the only valid polling places from here on would be churches.
Or if it was stated by a church polling place that in order to enter the doors, you must bow to the Virgin Mary, and the govenrment being okay with that. (My suspicion is that the election comissions put very strict rules on what the churches can do when they serve as polling places.)
In fact, I see the opposite here. Churches - like schools - are being used because they have big rooms and parking. They are being treated as any other building that is equipped to serve the public.
I don't think churches are being singled out because they are churches (if that were the case, ALL polling places would be churches), but rather because they are large buildings that have parking and which are willing to serve as polling places.
Think of it this way: would you have a problem if a few priests volunteered to be precinct monitors and monitor voting?
Probably not, because they are not picked AS priests, but they are picked as citizens who want to help out on election day.
That is the way I see this: there are schools used for polling, and there are churches. What do the two have in common? They are big, they have ample parking, and they are able and willing to serve as polling places.
THAT IS IT.
And you are missing my point. That is playing with fire, THAT IS MY POINT. It is much easyer to avoid conflict by not creating the potential of conflict by putting the polling places in neutral places like schools or libraries.
Like I said, if a Baptist Church holds a polling place a Jew or atheist would have every right to bitch about it. And if "Atheist Station" were big enough to be a polling place Christians would bitch about it AND THEY WOULD BE RIGHT.
I dont think our dissagreement is wanting a secular state. Our dissagreement is "where do you draw the line"?
I think you falsely trust theists too much. The founders certainly didnt want citizens paraniod of each other but they made lots of comments about keeping an eye on religion. I simply think that what they are doing by putting polling places in churchs is playing with fire and causes needless division.
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:36 am
I think you ignore reality in cases like this.
Your attitude is that I shouldnt bitch. But the reality is, even if I agreed with you PEOPLE DO BITCH. Neutrality prevents that needless division from getting to that point.
Christians are hypocrites in this country and you deny that. Another case and point. In PA Downey put up a holiday tree with skeptics book covers as decorations NEXT TO A NATIVITY sceene that Christians insisted on having on public property. MY position has always been consistant, any display should be neutral or it shouldnt be done at all, in this case NEITHER side should have done that, in my opinion.
Christians bitched about the atheist display and 4 TIMES in December the atheist tree was vandelized. You are far too trusting. No one is saying Christians should not have a voice. But you are fooling yourself if you think they are open minded enough to always give us the same settings and same treatment that they demand.
I will go this far. IF BOTH SIDES AGREE TO TAKING TURNS EQUALLY, then let it in. Unfortantly with that attitude, then you'd have to let in a Scientology display, then you'd have to allow polling places be set up in a Church of Scientology? What if a Wiccan Church offers a polling place?
|You are always going to have oposition to any of those things. That leads to sectarian squabbling which is easly avoided by neutral settings.
There are two choices.
Let it all in. Or, keep it all out. Most of the time when you give Christians a public setting they instantly become hypocrites and bitch when someone wants the same setting in the same scale they get coddled with.
I wouldnt object if Christians cared about the Constitution, but they dont. They view it through dogmatic goggles as being solely theirs and THEY alone get to decide what gets done on government property.
THAT IS WHY YOU DO NOT SEE POSTERS NEXT TO THE PLEDGE (SAME SIZE SAME FONT))
"Question with boldness even the existance of God" Thomas Jefferson.
THAT IS WHY YOU DO NOT SEE POSTERS NEXT TO THE PLEDGE(SAME SIZE SAME FONT)
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Barbary Treaty articall 11.
You are assuming Christians have no bias, I am telling you that they do. Next time you are in a public classroom, make the suggestion of putting those quotes up next to every poster of the pledge(SAME SIZE DISPLAY) and you will see how hypocriticall Christians are.
You are far too trusting.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 666
Posted:
Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:36 am
Oh that's easy.
You draw the line in not favoring or discriminating against any faith.
If you want to pretend there is no agenda behind you, keep it up. And if more and more Christians start doing that, it wont stop at polling places being in Churchs, it will be a cross on the flag and a cross on the Capital dome.
Brian, can you get back to the issue, though, of whether a church as a polling place violates the Establishment clause.
It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The only way I could see this violating the Establishment clause is if districts wrote a law saying that the only valid polling places from here on would be churches.
Or if it was stated by a church polling place that in order to enter the doors, you must bow to the Virgin Mary, and the govenrment being okay with that. (My suspicion is that the election comissions put very strict rules on what the churches can do when they serve as polling places.)
In fact, I see the opposite here. Churches - like schools - are being used because they have big rooms and parking. They are being treated as any other building that is equipped to serve the public.
I don't think churches are being singled out because they are churches (if that were the case, ALL polling places would be churches), but rather because they are large buildings that have parking and which are willing to serve as polling places.
Think of it this way: would you have a problem if a few priests volunteered to be precinct monitors and monitor voting?
Probably not, because they are not picked AS priests, but they are picked as citizens who want to help out on election day.
That is the way I see this: there are schools used for polling, and there are churches. What do the two have in common? They are big, they have ample parking, and they are able and willing to serve as polling places.
THAT IS IT.
You have absolutly NO CLUE what you are talking about.
In the last city I lived in, I voluteered to drive people to polling places. I DROVE PAST LIBRARIES BIG ENOUGH, AND AN ARMARY WAS JUST TWO BLOCKS AWAY AND BIG ENOUGH, and the POLLING PLACE WAS STILL PUT IN A CHURCH!
It was a diliberate action that had nothing to do with "good will". It was an act of an ignorant and bias city council who have no concept of the Constitutional neutrality. These same people PRAY before city council meetings BUT would never allow an atheist to do give an invocation at a city council meeting.
You are fooling yourself and acting as their enabler.
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:19 am
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Oh that's easy.
You draw the line in not favoring or discriminating against any faith.
This voting issue doesn't do that.
Quit being such a victim.
Do you read my posts or do you just merely project your thoughts onto me?
I am not a victim.
I am keeping an eye on religion because when it has no leash those who are not in that religious power get fucked. Again, read your history books. And even today there are pleanty of examples of theocractic facism.
Shiites get fucked in Saudi Arabia as well as atheists and Christians. Sunnis get fucked in Iran as well as Jews and atheists.
THEY HAVE NO VOICE, they ARE VICTIMS because there is no leash on religion. I am not a victim because I insist on a leash and a seperation. I wont have that if I dont maintain it.
I am not a victim, I am maintaing freedom NOW to insure that I dont become a victim in the future.
Christians in Iran, Jews in Iran, gays in Iran are victims. I can become a victim here if I ignore mixing government and religion. I am not a victim BECAUSE I RAISE MY VOICE AND REMIND PEOPLE OF THE DANGERS OF MIXING GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION,
Just like the founders WHO were a variety of beliefs.
A woman is not a victim by taking self defence classes and carries mace. It just means that she is aware that there are men who can potentially rape her. That doesnt mean that she assumes all men will. But to pretend it never happens or cant happen, is foolish.
I do not assume that all Christians have ill intent. But to assume that none do is foolish.
Being pro active and vigglant is HOW YOU PREVENT BECOMING A VICTIM.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 666
Posted:
Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:57 am
Yes, you are a victim.
You are saying "oh woe is me, when I go to choose between a Republican and a Democrat I am subjected to seeing a cross on the way to the polling place. I am discriminated against."
In order to prove that you are being oppressed, here in the USA, you rely on examples of other people being oppressed in other countries, places were you are not, dealing with laws you are not.
If you, poor you, see that the building has a cross on it on your way to vote, the government is not showing preference to any religion. You raise your voice to remind people that you don't know what you are talking about.
If you insist that the extreme fundy who is religiously forbidden from going on the grounds of other religions even for secular purposes is being descriminated against, then our laws against murder discriminate against those whose religious beliefs mandate human sacrifice.
You try to compare yourself to a woman taking self defense classes - a more accurate comparison is the college feminist who walks around carrying a sign saying "all men are rapists". You are as pro active as that feminist.
Go look for a real example of church state issues.
If you insist that the extreme fundy who is religiously forbidden from going on the grounds of other religions even for secular purposes is being descriminated against, then our laws against murder discriminate against those whose religious beliefs mandate human sacrifice.
If you insist that the extreme fundy who is religiously forbidden from going on the grounds of other religions even for secular purposes is being descriminated against, then our laws against murder discriminate against those whose religious beliefs mandate human sacrifice.
If you insist that the extreme fundy who is religiously forbidden from going on the grounds of other religions even for secular purposes is being descriminated against, then our laws against murder discriminate against those whose religious beliefs mandate human sacrifice.
Joined: Feb 12, 2008
Posts: 5
Location: Charleston, SC
Posted:
Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:19 am
...getting back to the original question, please consider...
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.
How does putting a voting booth in a church establish religion, thus violate the 1st amendment? I must have missed something...
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:30 am
realityslayer wrote:
...getting back to the original question, please consider...
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.
How does putting a voting booth in a church establish religion, thus violate the 1st amendment? I must have missed something...
Nice try. Now, if you think that it is NOT an an atempt to userpt the Constitution go ask those same people to allow YOU to give an atheist invocation at a city council meeting.
It is goverment placing the polling place IN THE CHURCH to make the statement that our Constitution is Jesus owned, if that was NOT the case then these same Christians WOULD NOT BITCH about a polling place being put in a Mosque. These same Christians BITCHED when Keith Elleson swore in on a Koran insted of a bible.
It is a backdoor tactic to errode Jefferson's "wall" and you are fooling yourself if you think it does not violate the Constitution. It is goverment endorsing Christianity OTHERWISE these same Christians WOULD NOT BITCH if other religions did the same thing.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 666
Posted:
Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:41 am
Brian37 wrote:
realityslayer wrote:
...getting back to the original question, please consider...
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.
How does putting a voting booth in a church establish religion, thus violate the 1st amendment? I must have missed something...
Nice try. Now, if you think that it is NOT an an atempt to userpt the Constitution go ask those same people to allow YOU to give an atheist invocation at a city council meeting.
Not an accurate comparison.
Brian37 wrote:
It is goverment placing the polling place IN THE CHURCH to make the statement that our Constitution is Jesus owned,
It is government placing it there because it is convenient.
Brian37 wrote:
if that was NOT the case then these same Christians WOULD NOT BITCH about a polling place being put in a Mosque.
Idiots will bitch no matter what.
Brian37 wrote:
These same Christians BITCHED when Keith Elleson swore in on a Koran insted of a bible.
Idiots will bitch no matter what.
Brian37 wrote:
It is a backdoor tactic to errode Jefferson's "wall"
If you are looking for it to be so, since it is not so in reality.
Brian37 wrote:
and you are fooling yourself if you think it does not violate the Constitution.
Actually we are reading the constitution and thinking it does not violate the constitution.
Brian37 wrote:
It is goverment endorsing Christianity
No it isn't, unless you are a professional victim looking for a reason to complain.
Brian37 wrote:
OTHERWISE these same Christians WOULD NOT BITCH if other religions did the same thing.
Idiots will always find a reason to say "help help I'm being oppressed", just as you are doing.
Joined: Feb 12, 2008
Posts: 5
Location: Charleston, SC
Posted:
Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:51 am
Brian37 wrote:
realityslayer wrote:
...getting back to the original question, please consider...
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.
How does putting a voting booth in a church establish religion, thus violate the 1st amendment? I must have missed something...
Nice try. Now, if you think that it is NOT an an atempt to userpt the Constitution go ask those same people to allow YOU to give an atheist invocation at a city council meeting.
It is goverment placing the polling place IN THE CHURCH to make the statement that our Constitution is Jesus owned, if that was NOT the case then these same Christians WOULD NOT BITCH about a polling place being put in a Mosque. These same Christians BITCHED when Keith Elleson swore in on a Koran insted of a bible.
It is a backdoor tactic to errode Jefferson's "wall" and you are fooling yourself if you think it does not violate the Constitution. It is goverment endorsing Christianity OTHERWISE these same Christians WOULD NOT BITCH if other religions did the same thing.
Your entire argument is to quote Christian reactions and prejudices? Christians bitching about the Koran or going to a mosque is seen by you a valid defense of Constitutional law? What does me not being able to give an invocation have to do with voting booths? This is ridiculous!!!!
You still haven't answered the question... ...how does a community putting a voting booth inside a church equate to Congress making a law to establish religion (sans emotion)?
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file