O'Connor's opinion on Church and State

[BadBoyBenny]

I lifted it from slate, thought it was worth posting. In a lot of ways it appeals to both sides to the political spectrum right now.

[ QUOTE ]
At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. … Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

[shots]

Who's trying to renegotiate the constitutional boundries?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Who's trying to renegotiate the constitutional boundries?

[/ QUOTE ]The type of people who put "under God" into our pledge of allegiance in 1954.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/

I long for the days of George Washington to return, when the President of our country never refers to one religion's god, but instead to "providence", as our founding fathers wished.

[shots]

Are those people still around? they must be really old by now I suggest we just wait for them to die /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Are those people still around? they must be really old by now I suggest we just wait for them to die /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]That would almost be funny if I hadn't said "type".

[shots]

But you couldn't give any current examples of anyonye trying to that now you had to go back 50 years and dig something up isn't actually unconstitutional even if it was pointless hysteria that led to changing the pledge.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who's trying to renegotiate the constitutional boundries?

[/ QUOTE ]The type of people who put "under God" into our pledge of allegiance in 1954.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/

I long for the days of George Washington to return, when the President of our country never refers to one religion's god, but instead to "providence", as our founding fathers wished.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a new government would change it to "under Allah" I guess that type of people would oppose it too. Double standards-people annoys me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

[shots]

You do know that the word Allah translates litterally to God right? If you're asking wheather we should change the language of the pledge to Arabic then I must say I'm against it.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
But you couldn't give any current examples of anyonye trying to that now you had to go back 50 years and dig something up isn't actually unconstitutional even if it was pointless hysteria that led to changing the pledge.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you live under a rock? Have you missed all this about the ten commandments (you know the "thou shalt have no other gods" stuff) in courthouses?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
You do know that the word Allah translates litterally to God right?

[/ QUOTE ]No, it does not. It translates into Allah.

When is the last time you heard a muslim say, in english, "Praise God"?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I know, you know, but do they know? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif (nitty mood today /images/graemlins/blush.gif)

P.S. Some people are too sensitive about religion. I remember in ground school, we were making some kind of pre-celebration to Christmas. I was something like 12 years old and headed a group of 10 children amongst them 2 girls of about 8. A teacher explained me that I had to make sure they did not directly take part in any Christmas-related activity (creating Santa's, singing Christmas songs etc.) since their parents had instructed the school such. Their parents were Jehova's witnesses and against all celebration.

[shots]

I believe the supreme court ruled against having the ten commandments in that courtroom but ruled for the display on the Lawn in texas because it was one of ninteen other displays about the legal heritage of our country. I don't see how any of this is redefining the constitution which says simply that the state shall not endorse a religion.

[shots]

Yes it does look it up.
The fact that Muslims like to use the traditional Arabic word doesn't change the definition of the translation. Also I have heard muslims thank God before using the english word God.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how any of this is redefining the constitution which says simply that the state shall not endorse a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]Let me catch you up on what's been happening on every news station over the last two years:

Various "types of people" have attempted putting the ten commandments inside of courthouses. Since that is ruled unconstitutional (something which is enraging a healthy portion of the populace), the ten commandments have been ordered to be removed from courthouses. That's how it relates to redefining contitutional boundaries.

If what you're trying to say is you don't understand the ruling, then [censored] read it.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it does look it up.
The fact that Muslims like to use the traditional Arabic word doesn't change the definition of the translation. Also I have heard muslims thank God before using the english word God.

[/ QUOTE ]Oh, okay. So if they're the same thing you wouldn't mind thanking Allah before eating your next Thanksgiving meal?

The two words mean two different things. One is the Muslim god, the other is either an all-encompasing term for deities, or the Christian god.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me catch you up on what's been happening on every news station over the last two years:
Various "types of people" have attempted putting the ten commandments inside of courthouses. Since that is ruled unconstitutional (something which is enraging a healthy portion of the populace), the ten commandments have been ordered to be removed from courthouses. That's how it relates to redefining contitutional boundaries.
If what you're trying to say is you don't understand the ruling, then [censored] read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably know far better then you what's happening in the news. The supreme court are the ones that interprate the constitution if someone tries to do something that violates the constitution they're not trying to redifine it they're simply saying that they don't think it's unconstitutional. The supreme court told them they were wrong. I'm not seeing what the panic is about. As for me not understanding the decision I understand it perfectly perhaps it's you that needs to read it.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, okay. So if they're the same thing you wouldn't mind thanking Allah before eating your next Thanksgiving meal?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was eating in a muslim country were everyone was speaking arabic then no I would have no problem using the arabic word for God.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I probably know far better then you what's happening in the news.

[/ QUOTE ]Apparently not.[ QUOTE ]
The supreme court are the ones that interprate the constitution if someone tries to do something that violates the constitution they're not trying to redifine it they're simply saying that they don't think it's unconstitutional.

[/ QUOTE ]Here's a secret I heard from an inside source in Washington: Some Supreme Court seats are going to open up in the next few years. Many different groups in Washington will indirectly play a role in who fills those vacancies.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]


If I was eating in a muslim country were everyone was speaking arabic then no I would have no problem using the arabic word for God.

[/ QUOTE ]Allah is the muslim equivalent of christianity's God. That doesn't make the two words mean the same thing. Sooner or later this must sink into your head.

[shots]

The Arabic to english dictionary says otherwise and so do many muslims who use the word god.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
ince that is ruled unconstitutional (something which is enraging a healthy portion of the populace), the ten commandments have been ordered to be removed from courthouses. That's how it relates to redefining contitutional boundaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me correct you error.

The Supremes did not say all displays of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms are unconstitutional. They only said the one in Kentucky was because it was “too conspicuous” They even said that the one in their court was OK and that all others needed to be decided on a case by case basis.

[BadBoyBenny]

Roy Moore

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The two words mean two different things. One is the Muslim god, the other is either an all-encompasing term for deities, or the Christian god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this is not correct. Islam recognizes god just the same as the christian god. Both are monotheist religions (Judaism and Sikhism are the only other two that I know of). The Koran explicitly recognizes and offers protection to the people of the Book (which includes Christians and Jews) and asks for the conversions of those who dont believe in a single all encompassing God. Historically, this resulted in masses of pagans in the middle east being converted from their ways into a monotheist religion with roots in the old testament.

So, the God that Christians refer to is the same as Allah. You can argue that these are two paths to the same goal and you would be correct.