Forbes seeks official nod to religion

[Blue_Tires]

Source: The Daily Press, Hampton, Va.

WASHINGTON - Virginia Rep. J. Randy Forbes says God is under attack in the nation's capital.

Alarmed by what he described as recent attempts to remove references to God from the public square, Forbes, R-Chesapeake, introduced a House resolution that would express support for an annual "American Religious History Week" and oppose any efforts to omit religious references from public buildings.

Critics say the nonbinding resolution amounts to unnecessary government meddling in religious affairs. They also say the resolution presents a false history of religious life in the nation, making it essentially a Christian history of America.

Read more: http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-news_forbes_0113jan13,0,4680635.story?coll=hr_tab01_layout

---

from the people who brought us the 'us poor hounded minority christians! we never have any money, power or political influence in this atheist nation!' - meme

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. He needs to get over it. This is not a theocracy

[LiberalFighter]

3. He needs a good Bible thumping in the head.

[ladywnch]

2. alright! let these people go create a theocracy somewhere---ELSE...not here!

who elected this a**hole anyway?!

let these folks have the red states and create the theocracy they soooo dearly want and let the rest of us live our lives. Oh wait, yeah, the red states rely on the blue states to live since they get most of the aid and contribute the least. too bad for them!

[Doctor_J]

4. An official state religion - are we fascist yet?

I predict ZERO Repukes will be against this.

[defendandprotect]

5. Congress shall make "no law" regarding religion . .. !!!

And, by that means, the Supreme Court whackoos should be throwing out Bush's legislation giving our tax dollars to religions --- under the "faith-based BS" ---

First --- I think we need to have some proof that there is a "god" ---
and, second, that his is the ONE "god." Will we all agree on that?

[Festivito]

6. "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therein lies the rub.

I am not happy with his act, however, he has a point. The wall of separation of church and state IS ERODING because people like Forbes are becoming angrier and angrier at the say-nothing crowd, but further because "free exercise" in that amendment has been omitted and ignored by that same crowd -- as did you, yourself.

Further, say-nothing supports atheism in violation of all three ideas: creating no law, prohibiting free exercise, and erecting a wall of separation.

[defendandprotect]

8. No -- "free exercise" does not include trampling the right of citizens to be free from religion

in public areas ---

As for "free exercise," I think you are misinterpreting that to mean that it can usurp the freedom of others. Which, btw, it did for a very long time in many, many ways. Public schools taught Bible lessons. Bibles were used to take oaths in our court house. Many religious hierarchies-- male, of course, used influence over government in order to prevent women/families from using birth control.
The lists go on and on, including religous censorship of movies, books, etc.

Religion is a private belief system --

And no one's practice of their religion depends upon having their religous symbols displayed in our government offices nor in our town squares.

Keep in mind that we have as much right to question and challenge religions as we do to question and challenge our own government.

When private beliefs are brought into the public areas, that's when the questioning and challenging begin.


Forbes, however, is trying to create legislation --- i.e., "law."

What's the "say-nothing crowd" --- ???

[Festivito]

10. Why not? Why do the religion-free only deserve that right?

...That is: to trample the right of citizens to be free WITH religion -- to exercise it.

BTW: The say-nothing crowd are those who want to limit free expression to say and to show nothing concerning religious themes anywhere government may reach -- which is just about anywhere minds can bend.

My point is that under the say-nothing rule, atheists for one, receive the right to display their religion of no-god, while religionists are denied that right.. that right being under free exercise.

[Solon]

11. The GOVERNMENT doesn't have the right to express support for religion...

we are talking about the government here, not citizens!

[Festivito]

14. Well. Yes, it can express anything it wants to express.

It has no right to establish nor to deny practise of religion.

Further, our government consists of persons able to express themselves, just unable to establish...

BTW I'm not certain you meant to respond to the post it appears behind. It does not seem to respond to what I said at all.

[Solon]

15. That's incorrect, a Government isn't an individual...

we are talking about the Government as a whole, and it cannot establish religion through force of law. Look up the lemon test for more information.

[Festivito]

17. Hmmm. We don't have a republic. Bush busier than I thought?

And I would not describe your posts as excessively entangled with their prior posts, so I suppose you pass the Lemon test and they seem as much to me.

[defendandprotect]

13. No -- we have a right as well to be free FROM religion . . .

and that is what the public arena is about ---

No religion has the right to decorate our public areas with their religious paraphernalia --
nor to try to use government to have their religious beliefs enforced upon non-members --
nor even their own members for that matter!!!

Government buildings are public areas and should, of course, be free from religous symbols.

Atheists believe there is NO "god" . . . so trying to label it a religion is inane.

And, btw, where are the atheists "no god" symbols?

What you mean is that religion is threatened when it can't attain the acknowledgment and authority connections to government and public areas would suggest. And that is why organized patriarchal
religion is fighting so hard to acquire the authentication which displays in our public areas
might provide them.

Since Bibles have now been taken out of our court houses, people are free from the suggestion that there is a "god" and/or that their own "god" is illegitimate, or that their own word or their own other spiritual beliefs are inadequate---!!!

Again --- no one's practice of religion is dependent upon having their religous symbols displayed in the town square.


I also notice that you didn't respond to these many areas where religion has intruded in the
civil rights and of citizens --- and often continues to do so . . .

As for "free exercise," I think you are misinterpreting that to mean that it can usurp the freedom of others. Which, btw, it did for a very long time in many, many ways. Public schools taught Bible lessons. Bibles were used to take oaths in our court house. Many religious hierarchies-- male, of course, used influence over government in order to prevent women/families from using birth control. The lists go on and on, including religous censorship of movies, books, etc.

[Festivito]

16. Ahmmm, I believe I was addressing that as say-nothings...

Say-nothing, be free from religion: Same thing to me.

Your topic is not quoting the Constitution, nor does it seem to respond to what I said, the latter of which is most disturbing.

Similar to free speech, we have no right to silence; it can follow that we have no right to seeing no religion.

Please understand that stopping people from practising religion bugs them. They will rise. They will fight. I feel our past decisions have been flawed and that those flawed decisions are slowly starting to bite us.

YOUR ?: The no-god symbols are no symbols at all. I think I was clear enough, and I did not use the word symbols.

Religious symbols do decorate the Supreme Court for one. Those religions do have a right to be there.

Atheists do BELIEVE there is no god. As a practise I pose they are entitled to practise their nothingness at will. Just not to the exclusion of another religion, life or liberty.

What you suggest that I mean, I do not mean.

If you have some specific instances where religion has intruded, please bring them up. I wrote specific questions for you. But, you have ignored them so far.

[defendandprotect]

18. Rather unclear effort by you -- however . . .

Similar to free speech, we have no right to silence; it can follow that we have no right to seeing no religion.

What that might be about is certainly not clear --- however, of course, we all have the right to silence --- even in our courts --- 5th amendment! You're grasping at straws.


If you want to use cutened-up labels for athetists, you'll have to play that game alone.

I think my response and the many other responses make quite clear that government is to have
nothing to do with religion --- in either establishing it, nor expressing it, nor financing it.

And, especially not in "making laws" about religion which Forbes is trying to do ---

Yes --- religious fanatics have succeeded in adding "god"-talk to the Supreme Court Building
and to our dollars and cents --- and OPTIONALLY to the Pledge of Allegiance ---
they should be removed.

As for this ---
Please understand that stopping people from practising religion bugs them. They will rise. They will fight. I feel our past decisions have been flawed and that those flawed decisions are slowly starting to bite us.

No one in America has been stopped from practicing their religion ---
And no one's religion depends upon having their symbols displayed on public/government property!
We have already seen the rise of the Christian-Taliban with the help of the GOP which financed the start up of the Christian Coalition.
We've also seen the fight for ignorance in denying evolution which continues on even after the
Scopes trial in its same insaneness. Even the Vatican is open to Bibical creation and evolution not precluding each other and co-existing!

Religious fanaticism around the world is a tremendous problem ---
and I doubt that it will be easily curtailed in America ---










MEANWHILE . . .
You don't seem to have actually read my message ---
and it's repeated here for you --- including a partial list of ways that patriarchal religions
have tried to control their own members and even non-members thru influence on government . . .

No -- we have a right as well to be free FROM religion . . .
Edited on Mon Jan-14-08 01:12 AM by defendandprotect
and that is what the public arena is about ---

No religion has the right to decorate our public areas with their religious paraphernalia --
nor to try to use government to have their religious beliefs enforced upon non-members --
nor even their own members for that matter!!!

Government buildings are public areas and should, of course, be free from religous symbols.

Atheists believe there is NO "god" . . . so trying to label it a religion is inane.

And, btw, where are the atheists "no god" symbols?

What you mean is that religion is threatened when it can't attain the acknowledgment and authority connections to government and public areas would suggest. And that is why organized patriarchal
religion is fighting so hard to acquire the authentication which displays in our public areas
might provide them.

Since Bibles have now been taken out of our court houses, people are free from the suggestion that there is a "god" and/or that their own "god" is illegitimate, or that their own word or their own other spiritual beliefs are inadequate---!!!

Again --- no one's practice of religion is dependent upon having their religous symbols displayed in the town square.


I also notice that you didn't respond to these many areas where religion has intruded in the
civil rights and of citizens --- and often continues to do so . . .

As for "free exercise," I think you are misinterpreting that to mean that it can usurp the freedom of others. Which, btw, it did for a very long time in many, many ways. Public schools taught Bible lessons. Bibles were used to take oaths in our court house. Many religious hierarchies-- male, of course, used influence over government in order to prevent women/families from using birth control. The lists go on and on, including religous censorship of movies, books, etc.

[Lance_Boyle]

20. where have bibles been taken out of courthouses?

There's still one in every court in NC, although people do have the right to affirm the truthfulness of their testimony without reference to gawds, instead of swearing.

[Lance_Boyle]

19. your point is a non-point

"atheists for one, receive the right to display their religion of no-god"

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is to religion as not collecting stamps is to hobby. Basic SAT analogy stuff, here. No, there is no valid way to compare atheism to religion within the framework of religion. Get over it. Religionists never seem to understand that "I don't drink soda" is a perfectly acceptable response to the age old question of which is better, coke or pepsi.

[queenbdem87]

7. Yeah I'm from Chesapeake

and I worked on a campaign against him back in 2004. He is a total nutjob.

[Blue_Tires]

12. hello!

i'm from Virginia Beach!:)

[NashVegas]

9. God Can Strike Back

If she has an issue.

[Javaman]

21. Can we just replace the word god with money now?

I mean really, let's stop beating around the bushes already.

[High Plains]

22. As long as we can talk about the history of Satanism...

[underpants]

23. What an idiot