Plan B Forum

Ah, so he wasn't talking about prohibiting valedictorians from saying a prayer at a graduation ceremony, or banning manger scenes from town squares at Christmas time...

Didn't think so...

Gee, I don't know, do those things give rise to the contention and conflict that he predicted? Apparently he was psychic.

Gee, I don't know, do those things give rise to the contention and conflict that he predicted?

For nearly 200 years they never did...

All the evidence suggests they never would...

I've yet to see the graduation ceremony prayer or manger scene that caused "ceaseless strife" or "soaked the soil in blood"....

I've never seen a plaque with the 10 Commandments in a public building do that either...

So far the 10 Commandments carved into in the Supreme Court building haven't been the cause of any bloodshed..

No religious wars have been sparked by the Houses of Congress opening each session with a prayer, or by the presence of government paid chaplains in the military, or by the presence of the words "In God We Trust" on the currency, or the words "under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance...

No, those sort of things tend to happen when government establishes an official state religion, (The Church Of England for example) and starts arresting and persecuting anyone who doesn't adhere to it. That is clearly what Madison was talking about, and I agree with him.

I think a religion based civil war is a very clear possible outcome of how things re going presently.

Well, I don't see anything like that at all....

There are religious divisions in this country, there always have been. (And also divisions between people of faith and the militant Atheists) But no kind of divisions that would remotely rise to the level of a shooting war...(religious divisions in the US in the past have been far worse.)

There are religious extremists of all stripes in this country, (and Atheist extremists) but despite the grossly out-sized focus they get from the media, (just take the 90 member Westboro Baptist Church as exhibit A) all of the extremists put together represent a small fraction of the population, and the percentage that have shown any propensity for organized violence is infinitesimal...

Certainly nowhere near what would be needed for a "civil war"...

I don't think it is immediately eminent but I do believe it is a very possible outcome if physical influences are applied. Used to be if you didn't like the local government you could get together with like minded individuals, build a big ship and take off and resettle elsewhere. There is nowhere to go to now to the only choice is to stay on the fire and let the pressure cooker explode.

The first school prayer case won by the ACLU was brought by a Roman Catholic parent who thought it was wrong to force his daughter to attend religious services which are heretical to his religion.


Yrs,
Rubato

I agree with Lord Jim on this. Much ado about almost nothing. Most people just want to be left alone to worship (or not worship) as they see fit. If there is a revolution, religion will not be the primary cause (IMO).

The only fuss is coming from zealots who keep trying to inject religion back into the schools and public institutions.


Yrs,
Rubato

There sure appear to be enough of them to be having some effect. State after state is taking up these so-called "religious liberty" laws that are nothing more than a licence for racists, homophobes, male chauvinist pigs and other assorted bigots to impose their worldview on the rest of us.

Scooter wrote:There sure appear to be enough of them to be having some effect. State after state is taking up these so-called "religious liberty" laws that are nothing more than a licence for racists, homophobes, male chauvinist pigs and other assorted bigots to impose their worldview on the rest of us.

Candian lying at its best. The purpose of so-called religious liberty laws is to prevent "the rest of us" from imposing their worldview on those who disagree and want to be left alone to run their own lives without dick-taters making the rules.

Not sure I understand that Meade; you always have that right, you just can't dictate that others observe your world view, nor can you dictate that the government accommodate it. Don't like gays? That's your right, but you cannot then say that you have a right to bar them from your place of business or refuse to serve them anymore than you could bar a black person or a woman from it. I think you have the "dictator" backwards; the government protects all peoples, not just the ones you choose to serve.

Big RR wrote: Not sure I understand that Meade; you always have that right, you just can't dictate that others observe your world view, nor can you dictate that the government accommodate it. Don't like gays? That's your right, but you cannot then say that you have a right to bar them from your place of business or refuse to serve them anymore than you could bar a black person or a woman from it. I think you have the "dictator" backwards; the government protects all peoples, not just the ones you choose to serve.

"Don't like gays" is not accurate. I've known and liked many homosexuals; some I've not liked at all. That has nothing to do with their sexual orientation but with their personalities/character - just as is true of anyone else. Why, I've even known and liked some black persons while not liking others; in once case it was members of the same family. Some folks are friends and others not - pretty sure that's quite normal for everyone.

We sold insurance equally to anyone. Oddly, one the lesbians I disliked was a good client who signed up with us long after she and I had had some severe disagreements and we got on well from the business side of things. It's all so much more complicated than some people want to make it look.

No, but if I was a cake decorator, I'd not refuse to serve any person - but I damn well want to control what message I am forced to write on my cakes. If I disagree with the message, then that person can go somewhere else to get their views or their bad language published. If I am permitted to refuse to write the F-word on a cake, then why not other things that I find offensive?

Am I permitted to refuse to write even one thing on my cake? I don't know.

I expect the Scooter-creature is correct that some people (perhaps many) might think that such an exemption law would allow them to get away with their phobias.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:...No, but if I was a cake decorator, I'd not refuse to serve any person - but I damn well want to control what message I am forced to write on my cakes. If I disagree with the message, then that person can go somewhere else to get their views or their bad language published. If I am permitted to refuse to write the F-word on a cake, then why not other things that I find offensive?

Am I permitted to refuse to write even one thing on my cake? I don't know.....

Tell your customers that if they request a message on their cakes that you don't approve, you will comply with their request and the cake will include the following disclaimer under their message - "The inclusion of a customer's requested message, including views and opinions expressed on this cake does not constitute or imply an endorsement of that message by Meade's Jolly Christian Cake Bakery."

Or if it bothers you that much, maybe going into the cake business is not for you.

A bit facile that.

Big RR wrote:Or if it bothers you that much, maybe going into the cake business is not for you.

Having an excess of pacifist police officers and blind photographers, just at the moment.

yrs,
rubato

MajGenl.Meade wrote:A bit facile that.

some time the best answers are the simplest.

Am I permitted to refuse to write even one thing on my cake?

Well, superficiality is certainly one way to avoid facing a question head-on.