Only in Missouri. However, it's not so bad if you look at the states bordering Missouri. In Kansas it's illegal to have a hill higher than 3 feet on your property, in Illinois human life is considered inferior to squirrels, and in Arkansas it's considered taboo to wear shoes.Kilre wrote:whatever happened to freedom of religion? has it become taboo to be non-christian?
What do you mean 'become'?Kilre wrote:whatever happened to freedom of religion? has it become taboo to be non-christian?
I'm pretty sure the media works about the same around the world - they take the stories that will draw the most readers and cover them.Dutch! wrote:Yet at the same time so much like everybody else...
I still think you're getting the wrong end of the stick from the media.
What's new is a couple things - an actual law codifying a state God would destroy one of the things the US was built upon - freedom of religion.Jackhass wrote:What's the big deal?
According to what I read you're still allowed to express or practice whatever religion you want...the law basically just establishes the Christian God as the official one of the state.
So what else is new? When George Bush says "God bless America" he sure don't mean Buddah or Allah.
Once again though...seperation of church and state clearly isn't being practiced too stictly right up to the top of the government. From what I can see this law basically just makes official what's already happening.Jim North wrote:The big deal is that it's against seperation of church and state to have any religion declared official, Christianity or otherwise.
Yes, it's potentially lots of little things like this, right now. In fact, there's a current case where the widow of a pagan soldier killed in Afghanistan cannot get their religious symbol on his gravestone because the Pentagon won't allow it.rkolter wrote:Or even simpler, to say that since there is an official god, the only people authorized to conduct marriages in the State of Missouri must be priests of the state sanctioned diety. So, no weddings without a Christian priest.
What's that supposed to mean? That minorities will no longer be free to express their religious beliefs? WTF? Even here, religious minorities have their rights ferociously protected by the state - and that is a state that owns and controls the majority church.The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.
You say as if everyone was just fine and dandy about everything that's come before in this vein. There was quite a big to-do when W first started dealing out Christian rhetoric, actually. There's still a ton of people who aren't happy about it, and this is another step towards making things worse instead of better. Many of us aren't happy about the whole situation, not just this one law . . . don't think any different.Jackhass wrote:Once again though...seperation of church and state clearly isn't being practiced too stictly right up to the top of the government. From what I can see this law basically just makes official what's already happening.
I mean, obviously I can see why you're all opposed and I would be too (I'm not actually from the US), just saying that if you take a step back you'll see all this is happening anyways...just unofficially.
I was just typing out a response exactly like that, just not as well-said. So I'll just tack this on to say that I am one of those people that was highly bothered before this. The worst part is that my family -fairly stable in their Christianity- fail to see any problem with this at all.Jim North wrote:You say as if everyone was just fine and dandy about everything that's come before in this vein. There was quite a big to-do when W first started dealing out Christian rhetoric, actually. There's still a ton of people who aren't happy about it, and this is another step towards making things worse instead of better. Many of us aren't happy about the whole situation, not just this one law . . . don't think any different.Jackhass wrote:Once again though...seperation of church and state clearly isn't being practiced too stictly right up to the top of the government. From what I can see this law basically just makes official what's already happening.
I mean, obviously I can see why you're all opposed and I would be too (I'm not actually from the US), just saying that if you take a step back you'll see all this is happening anyways...just unofficially.
While we don't have a state religion in Canada, for historical reasons we do allow religions to operate seperate school systems and mediate in civil disputes. The seperation of church and state in the US is much stronger than it is here - Which is why people in the US tend to view the church far more positively than the government. Churches only provide services they want to, on a purely voluntary basis, to the people they want, so those services tend to work more effectively than those provided by government agencies. In the US, churches are seen as shelters from the secular world. In Canada, they're just one more large institution.Ida wrote:When the people in a country that is built on separation of church and state become more radical than those with government religion, something stinks.
I would also like to add for those who might think this is all a big anti-Christian thing behind not wanting this law . . . it's not. Christianity may get caught in the crossfire most often because it's headed by some particularly pushy folks, but the fact is that ideally no religion should be included in state affairs. It doesn't really matter if W came out chanting a Hindu mantra or if this law placed Thugee or Judaism or Nordic belief as the official state religion . . . it violates some of the most basic principles of this government and what it purportedly stands for.[AlmightyPyro] wrote:I would just like to say that not all christianity is like the media says.
Yup!Jim North wrote:I would also like to add for those who might think this is all a big anti-Christian thing behind not wanting this law . . . it's not. Christianity may get caught in the crossfire most often because it's headed by some particularly pushy folks, but the fact is that ideally no religion should be included in state affairs. It doesn't really matter if W came out chanting a Hindu mantra or if this law placed Thugee or Judaism or Nordic belief as the official state religion . . . it violates some of the most basic principles of this government and what it purportedly stands for.[AlmightyPyro] wrote:I would just like to say that not all christianity is like the media says.
Just to make things clear - While I think this bill is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, an anti-Christian agenda is not one of them. I am a Christian.Jim North wrote:I would also like to add for those who might think this is all a big anti-Christian thing behind not wanting this law . . . it's not.
He's just saying that a Christian could very easily take offense to this thread, when it's not about the particular religion in question at all. It's about breaking the constitution and building tiers of power over religious minorities.Ian Moulding wrote:Just to make things clear - While I think this bill is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, an anti-Christian agenda is not one of them. I am a Christian.Jim North wrote:I would also like to add for those who might think this is all a big anti-Christian thing behind not wanting this law . . . it's not.
