The New "Tolerance" - Page 4

mrnoodle · 05-17-2006, 05:32 PM

Correct. The problem isn't "OMG they're taking bibles out of courtrooms, how will we know if anyone's telling the truth now?!" The problem is, "Why are they after the bible all of a sudden?"

Happy Monkey · 05-17-2006, 05:48 PM

And that question can be boiled down to "we've had special treatment for so long, why can't we keep it?"

xoxoxoBruce · 05-17-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Incorrect... the US is based on the separation of Chuch and state.

Not really, the Constitution was written with that idea in mind and you can call it the "basis" of the US.

In reality, though, from the 1776 kick off until a third of the way through the 20th century the federal government wasn't running the show.

Politics was local and the state politicians and even those sent to Washington, answered to the power base back home. Today the power and the money, or because of the money, flow down from the federal level.

Anyway, back in the day, the local politicians were predominately Christian, as were their constituents is most areas. Their thinking, their actions and their rules were based on Christian precepts. Helps keep the locals comfortable .....and in line.

I'm not saying these people in power were good Christians, only that they used it to rally support and control the population. If you question their power they'd beat you down as a heretic.

So you see, this country actually was, built on Christian principles, although they were often distorted beyond recognition.

05-17-2006, 09:02 PM

I guess that is why two governors were threatened with removal from office during the first years of the US for keeping prayer at the beginning of federal court?

skysidhe · 05-17-2006, 10:12 PM

I don't think so Bruce.

I thought the founding fathers were against one dominate religion controlling the country. People were given the freedom to worship how they will.I don't know of anyother time in american history, besides today and the puritain times where the US governments used fear of the wrath of god to keep people in line.

I don't know though. I only know what I think and don't have any facts to prove otherwise. ( at this moment)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_state

05-17-2006, 10:21 PM

Founded by religious leaders... http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

[url]http://candst.tripod.com/toc.htm[/url

http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/jefferson_quotes.pdf?docID=761

romuh doog · 05-17-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

When you put "tolerate" in quotes, what do you mean?

Apologies for taking long to reply.

When I put "tolerate" as far as I tolerate things I mean that I am a woman working in construction. I take care of 2 disabled people and I am the sole support. I would prefer to work all day and not have someone hand a Playboy magazine across a backhoe to another and say something raw, I would prefer not to hear F this or F that or worse expletives (every other word as a form of communication), but I work in that environment so I tolerate it or walk away. I'm not there to judge, I just would prefer to not be around certain things each day. Also since I'm a woman I'm given a lot of jobs that the younger and newer men refuse to do. I also tolerate that. It's a paycheck, nothing more.

As far as tolerating things pertaining to my religion as I belive this post implies? I feel there is a time and place for everything. Work is for work, but that doesn't mean I have to leave my principals at the door. I can take them with me, I'm just not going to impune anyone with my beliefs. If I don't like what's going on? I can leave, tolerate it or say my peace and look for work elsewhere. For now? I'm staying put, it's not intolerable.

Does that 'splain it to you?

05-17-2006, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romuh doog

Apologies for taking long to reply.

When I put "tolerate" as far as I tolerate things I mean that I am a woman working in construction. I take care of 2 disabled people and I am the sole support. I would prefer to work all day and not have someone hand a Playboy magazine across a backhoe to another and say something raw, I would prefer not to hear F this or F that or worse expletives (every other word as a form of communication), but I work in that environment so I tolerate it or walk away. I'm not there to judge, I just would prefer to not be around certain things each day. Also since I'm a woman I'm given a lot of jobs that the younger and newer men refuse to do. I also tolerate that. It's a paycheck, nothing more.

As far as tolerating things pertaining to my religion as I belive this post implies? I feel there is a time and place for everything. Work is for work, but that doesn't mean I have to leave my principals at the door. I can take them with me, I'm just not going to impune anyone with my beliefs. If I don't like what's going on? I can leave, tolerate it or say my peace and look for work elsewhere. For now? I'm staying put, it's not intolerable.

Does that 'splain it to you?

That is called a hostile work environment and is not EEOC compliant.
They need someone to 'splain that to them.

Flint · 05-18-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

"we've had special treatment for so long, why can't we keep it?"

Exactly! Removing preferential treatment from common use, no matter how ingrained, does not constitue an "attack" against the affected parties. Actually all they are being expected to do is to maintain their composure and get along with everybody, on a level playing field. If anyone has a problem with that, then they are the problem.

Want to quit being "persecuted" by non-Christians? Then stop trying to write your book into laws that people will have to follow - regardless of whether they read your book or not. Simple. The "war" will be over when Christianity gets off of the warpath.

If your philosophy can't survive and thrive on it's own, without bullying it's way into a special "good 'ol boys club" status, then maybe, perhaps, there's a reason for that, a reason that can't be so easily blamed on outside forces?

MaggieL · 05-18-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

Removing preferential treatment from common use, no matter how ingrained, does not constitue an "attack" against the affected parties.

We need you to go explain that the the Iraqi Sunnis. :-)

mrnoodle · 05-18-2006, 10:29 AM

If it's something that was a fundamental part of the founding of the country, it can hardly be considered some evil "extra" appendage that we can now, blessedly, be rid of.

You talk like this is a matter of finally putting those wacky xtians in their place. It's not. It's a matter of trying to preserve the things that presumably made this country a good place to come to from 1776 till the Iraq war.

Christians are outnumbered now, and that's just the way it is. However, one of the good things about the so-called browning of America is that Mexicans are by and large Christian. What a conundrum for the libs -- penis envy for secular Europe clashing with their infatuation for any culture that has dark skinned people in it.

Flint · 05-18-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

it can hardly be considered some evil "extra" appendage that we can now, blessedly, be rid of

This is the same deceptive phrasing of the issue that I've been talking about. Expecting you to be able to get along nicely with others, without forcing your beliefs on unwilling people, does not, under any circumstances, equate to "getting rid of you" . . .

Just mind your own business and leave everybody else alone. Simple.

There is no "National Religion" - no matter how much spin you apply.

wolf · 05-18-2006, 10:54 AM

Exactly, but that's not the same as there not being any religious expression allowed.

mrnoodle · 05-18-2006, 10:56 AM

It's not deceptive at all. No two ways about it -- the antichristians want to eliminate any and all mention of God, the bible, or anything remotely related to the religion they despise from public discourse. They're not worried that anyone is going to force religion down their throats. They want people to have to hide their Christianity unless they're within the walls of a church. Once that happens, can the persecution that you so snidely dismiss be far behind?

Kitsune · 05-18-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

It's not deceptive at all. No two ways about it -- the antichristians want to eliminate any and all mention of God, the bible, or anything remotely related to the religion they despise from public discourse.

Would you care to identify this group of "antichristians"? I've never heard of them, nor of their plans.

05-17-2006, 05:32 PM	#46
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	Correct. The problem isn't "OMG they're taking bibles out of courtrooms, how will we know if anyone's telling the truth now?!" The problem is, "Why are they after the bible all of a sudden?" __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

05-17-2006, 05:48 PM	#47
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	And that question can be boiled down to "we've had special treatment for so long, why can't we keep it?" __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

05-18-2006, 10:29 AM	#56
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	If it's something that was a fundamental part of the founding of the country, it can hardly be considered some evil "extra" appendage that we can now, blessedly, be rid of. You talk like this is a matter of finally putting those wacky xtians in their place. It's not. It's a matter of trying to preserve the things that presumably made this country a good place to come to from 1776 till the Iraq war. Christians are outnumbered now, and that's just the way it is. However, one of the good things about the so-called browning of America is that Mexicans are by and large Christian. What a conundrum for the libs -- penis envy for secular Europe clashing with their infatuation for any culture that has dark skinned people in it. __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

05-18-2006, 10:54 AM	#58
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	Exactly, but that's not the same as there not being any religious expression allowed. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

05-18-2006, 10:56 AM	#59
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	It's not deceptive at all. No two ways about it -- the antichristians want to eliminate any and all mention of God, the bible, or anything remotely related to the religion they despise from public discourse. They're not worried that anyone is going to force religion down their throats. They want people to have to hide their Christianity unless they're within the walls of a church. Once that happens, can the persecution that you so snidely dismiss be far behind? __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

05-17-2006, 09:02 PM	#49
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	I guess that is why two governors were threatened with removal from office during the first years of the US for keeping prayer at the beginning of federal court?

05-17-2006, 10:12 PM	#50
skysidhe ~~Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.~~ Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 6,828	I don't think so Bruce. I thought the founding fathers were against one dominate religion controlling the country. People were given the freedom to worship how they will.I don't know of anyother time in american history, besides today and the puritain times where the US governments used fear of the wrath of god to keep people in line. I don't know though. I only know what I think and don't have any facts to prove otherwise. ( at this moment) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_state

05-17-2006, 10:21 PM	#51
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	Founded by religious leaders... http://www.au.org/site/PageServer [url]http://candst.tripod.com/toc.htm[/url http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/jefferson_quotes.pdf?docID=761

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)