"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 20, 7:46 pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Sep 19, 12:34 pm, "RogerN" wrote:



"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Sep 18, 9:48 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Yall might want to take a look at this as well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

/
/So, I'm not a christian, so I should get the **** out of this place?
/You are not a christian either (so you say), so you should get the
/**** out as well.
/

That's not it at all, at least in my opinion. The problem is that
non-Christians have been telling Christians to "Get the **** out" when
they
have every right to be where they are just as you do. They have taken
"Separation of Church and State" and applied it in ways that it has
never
been applied before since the foundation of this country. I support the
original meaning, we should not have a state ran church or a church ran
state, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to have a nativity scene on
public
property, or at least it hasn't meant that until a few years ago.

RogerN

/
/It is wrong, in my opinion, to have a government sponsored religion.
/Displaying a nativity scene on public propoerty is government
/sponsorship of religion. I would be as opposed to display, on
/government propoerty or with government funds, of ANY religious
/symbol. I live in a town with far more churches than schools. There
/are plenty of non-government places to display such symbols.
/
/I also have a problem with the tax-exempt status of religious
/institutions.
/
/I am NOT telling anyone to get the **** out of anywhere. You can spend
/as much time in my city hall as you want. But don't erect a cross
/there, OK?
/

What about American History? Should we lie about the fact that the very
author of "Separation of church and state", Thomas Jefferson, gave
government money to missionaries and went to church in a government
building? There are 2 possibilities, either Thomas Jefferson was violating
what he wrote, seems unlikely, or today it is taken to mean what it never
meant, seems very likely.
/
/Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves. Perhaps we should go back to those
/good old days. It was also Government policy to kill Native Americans
/(injuns). Perhaps you'd like to go back to THOSE good old days? As
/Iggy wrote a few posts up from here, times change, and with time, so
/does our understanding of the Constitution.
/
snip

I don't think we should change the constitution to mean anything we want it
to mean, if that's OK, where do we draw the line. They have already changed
"shall make no law establishing religion" into "separation of church and
state", what next. Maybe the right to bear arms is about wearing short
sleeve shirts? If atheists want to change the law of the land then do it by
the legal process, not by redefining the constitution to mean what it NEVER
meant to the founding fathers. Is anyone arguing that we have a
constitutional right to own slaves? No, so what does that have to do with
anything?

RogerN