BF2S Forums Anti-American Asshats

-=raska=- wrote:

I didnt know those sorts of "agreements" existed elsewhere than in Quebec. I thought we were the only province/state to tolerate too much minorities's demands. Here, its part of the news, each week or almost, we hear about something that is given to minorities and that remove rights of the "real" quebecers.

For example :

1. A few days ago, some jewish people, in a YMCA, complained about the windows. They said that the windows should be removed or blocked, because they could see, outside, young girls training in "non-decent outfit" and this offended them. So we blocked the windows, the problem is there were more non-jewish people that didnt care about seeing girls outside (or who liked seeing young girls outside :P ).
2. There were a big christmas tree in a park in Montreal, a few years ago, minorities complained and asked the city to remove the tree, because the tree wasnt a symbol of their religion. They finally removed the tree and there isnt anymore in this park.
3. It's no longer allowed to say the word "Noel" (Christmas) in publicities and tv shows, but we can say "Holidays".
4. Muslims, in hospitals, can get health care before quebecers on Sunday morning, because they have to go to their prayers, all together at the same hour, each sunday morning, and they cant wait until people that came before them get health care.
5. A kid of the Sikh religion, has been allowed to bring a knife at school, because its part of his religion. The problem is, kids that dont practice this religion cant bring knives. (I think I'll fund a religion that obligates people to bring rockets launchers at school, so I'll be able to bring one).

And there are much more, but I cant remember of the others.

Thats not a democracy, thats a minoricracy. That crap still hasn't reached Brazil, thank Zeus. And before anyone thinks there are no immigrants here, Brazil has some of the largest Jewish and Muslim communities outside of Europe and Middle-East.

oh, ok, so if i'm walking down the public street and i don't want to take part in religion. I get to sue to have all the cathedrals turned into non-descript cinderblock lego buildings with no markings what-so-ever. makes perfect sense!!! If you don't want to take part, A) don't go into a cathedral, B) don't sing a fucking christmas song, C) sit there and enjoy the extra goof off time in school. How about you go and sue to remove all references to Ramadhan or Islam in San Francisco, after all it's only fair. As long as the school is open to teh discussion of all the religions represented by it's population it is in no way in violation of the "seperation of church and state" idea, which, btw, isn't actually in the constitution. It was in letters written to Jefferson by Franklin I believe (I could have the names wrong, it's been years, but you get the point). So long as the US government doesn't establish any one religion as a state religion, you are free to use religious symbols how and where you choose. It's just that the majority of the public has been duped into thinking they aren't allowed to have the ten commandments in courthouses by activist judges and lib hate groups run by people that weren't breast fed or got pantsed one too many times on the playground and are taking every chance they can to pervert interpretations of the constitution to their own whims. That's the idea behind the national cathedral in baltimore and all the cathedrals at places like the naval academy. They represent all the major religions in the US, you have full access to Rabbi's, Priests, Reverends, whoever. Inside each of those federally built cathedrals are chapels designated for the practice of each of the major religions. It's time we got more constructionist judges on the benches to interpret the constitution as it was written, and as it was written is that religious freedoms are all-inclusive, not all-exclusive.

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-12-05 08:41:23)

kr@cker wrote:

oh, ok, so if i'm walking down the public street and i don't want to take part in religion. I get to sue to have all the cathedrals turned into non-descript cinderblock lego buildings with no markings what-so-ever. makes perfect sense!!!

No, what it means is that having freedom of religion does not offer any more specific rights than those that do not have religious beliefs.

As far as minorities being allowed to do things that other religions are not, I don't agree with that.  It needs to be applied universally, and equally.  God has no place in public schools.  If you want your children to get an education that includes such things, there are private schools for that.  I have no problem with students reading the Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon or anything else in a public school on the student's own time, just so long as they aren't teaching it as part of a class.

As for the reference to God in the pledge, it wasn't there originally.  In fact, it was a monk that originally wrote the pledge, and did not have any religious reference in it.  It wasn't added to the pledge until the McCarthy era of the 1950s.

The reference to God on US currency wasn't there originally either.  The "In God We Trust" wasn't added to US currency until the mid-late 1800s.

+1 for christmas being about family man. my in laws can never understand that and christmas always seems to turn into some kind of gift purchasing contest. which of course they win because they are extremely wealthy....but its nice to see people that like to be with family on the holidays, not a turkey and presents....added bonus.

Personally, I feel schools should teach religious history and religious beliefs, but they shouldn't teach religion.

I'm all for schools teaching the Council of Nicaea.
I'm all for schools teaching that christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God sent to earth to die for our sins.
I am AGAINST (Public) schools teaching that Jesus IS the Son of God sent to earth to die for our sins.

Same applies to all other religions.

Last edited by Elamdri (2006-12-05 09:17:25)

Yknow, theres a really good short story about true equality by Kurt vonnegut called "Harrison Bergeron"

really interesting read.

kr@cker wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

oh, ok, so if i'm walking down the public street and i don't want to take part in religion. I get to sue to have all the cathedrals turned into non-descript cinderblock lego buildings with no markings what-so-ever. makes perfect sense!!!

No, what it means is that having freedom of religion does not offer any more specific rights than those that do not have religious beliefs.

that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard, someone doesn't have religious beliefs=someone doesn't worship. so you're denying everyone the right to worship. and schools have every right to teach about religion, considering it's impact on history it would be irresponsible for them not to. Should they say "this is hindu, and it is the only one that got it right"? of course not. Should religions be discussed, hell yes, should they be allowed to be practiced in public institutions? Hell yes. Should the muslim girl be able to ask that the school teach about ramadhan? of course. Whatever happened to the lib cry for "majority rule", funny how it doesn't apply when the majority is judeo-christian.  Besides, christmas has become much more than just a religious holiday, I don't participate in church at all and i still participate in christmas because it's more about family for me.

please show me where it says you can't discuss your religion in a public institution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution … amendments

I think you misunderstood.  I never said anyone was denied the right to worship.  I simply said that having the right to freedom of religion does not grant different or additional rights over those that are not religious.

Obviously there is religion in history, but you can teach about the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition without teaching religion.

Should religion be practiced in public facilities, absolutely not.  You bitch and whine about welfare and other tax funded services, well now it's my turn.  I will not allow my tax dollars to be used for religious worship.  They can do that at home, and within their buildings of worship.  They can even say a little silent prayer if they want to, but under no circumstances are open religious worship to happen in public facilities.

Should a student be able to ask their teach a religious question, no.  That is not the appropriate person to ask.  They should ask their parents or religious leaders such questions.

When my tax dollars go to public education I want it spent teaching math, science, history, English & foreign language, and social/citizenship classes.  I would also like to see school systems make a course for basic money management and make it required, with AP classes extending to investment and retirement planning.

show me a "school chaplain" in a public school, show me where public tax dollars are paying for bibles to be distributed

show me where the constitution says an open religious worship can not happen in a public facility

history and religion are inseperable, sorry, but how are you going to teach about the inquisition and not religion?

-OGz-Badge wrote:

It's funny you can talk about freedom of religion in this country all you want..However it is increasingly becoming more criminal to be a Christian in this country....Everyone is afraid of offending other religions yet they can persecute and ridicule Christians...When is the last time someone was converted to Christianity By a CHRISTmas Carole....There are traditions in this country that other countries are trying to squash...I wouldn't think of going to Israel and telling them that Hanukkah or however you spell it offends me because I don't believe the same as they do.

America is selling its culture to the PC crowd....You can all call me a racists if you want...I am one of the most tolerant people you will meet....I live in California also and it pisses me off to no end to go to Burger King or any other restaurant and half the posters and menu are in a foreign language. Again I don't go to other countries and demand that they cater to me since I don't speak their language....I don't go to Mexico and tell them to speak English don't come here and tell me to speak Spanish. Wake up America because if you don't we will no longer exist.

+1 Damned ACLU.  Good thing we have the ACLJ to fight them.

Its not teaching the religious beliefs, but rather, the context in which those beliefs are taugh that matters. If you teach those beliefs as though they are true, then you have breached the first ammendment. However, if you simply provide them as an informative piece of cultural significance, then it is ok. For example, its impossible to effectively teach current events in the middle east without teaching islamic beliefs and how they intertwine in the conflict. Thats perfectly ok. Where you have a problem is when a teacher says "Mohammed is" without putting the phrase "Muslims believe that" in front of it.

kr@cker wrote:

show me a "school chaplain" in a public school, show me where public tax dollars are paying for bibles to be distributed

Where did I ever say anything of the sort.  My point is that school facilities, teacher/staff salaries are paid for with tax dollars.  When I send my kid to school for an education, I expect that is what will happen.  Parents can teach their children about religion at home and in their churches.  Besides, how well do you really think that would work.  Whose religion are they to teach?  Are we to staff our schools with those having the necessary knowledge in all major religions?  Even among Christians they don't all agree on everything, so which Christian dogma gets followed?  You may notice that when people choose a place of worship, they are congregating among those with the same beliefs.  In a public school, that simply isn't the case, and this would lead to far more trouble than anyone imagines.

kr@cker wrote:

show me where the constitution says an open religious worship can not happen in a public facility

Show me where it says they can.

kr@cker wrote:

history and religion are inseperable, sorry, but how are you going to teach about the inquisition and not religion?

You do not need to fully discuss and understand the full concept and dogmas of religion to teach about the history of events that were religiously related.  You'd never get around to teaching history because you'd be spending all your time educating the students regarding the finer points of religion.  Do we have students become fully versed in socialism, Marxism, and communism before we teach them anything to do with Russian history?  No.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-12-05 09:45:42)

Stingray24 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

show me where the constitution says an open religious worship can not happen in a public facility

Show me where it says they can..

He already did " . . . shall not prevent the free exercise thereof."  It doesn't say "except in public facilities so you don't piss off the atheists."  Try again.

Free excercise does not mean that facilities paid for by all citizens can be turned into a pulpit.  Free exercise means the government will not arrest, detain, or otherwise interfere with a citizen having a religious belief.  City Halls are for citizens and government to meet to discuss city/town issues, and court houses are trying of criminal cases, not for preaching about God.

Believe it or not, I'm even okay with a "moment of silence" to let everyone do, or not do, their own thing.  However, open sermons/preaching/prayers step over the line.

SealXo wrote:

I can't believe how people from other countries are trying to ruin the american way! First they try to take out god in the Pedge, and now this?! If i went to Iran and went to a school there. And i said that it offended me, they wouldnt give a shit, if you come to a country you respect there ways of life, especially when they have had the same tradition for the last 300+ YEARS! God i mean seriously, lame

"God" wasn't in the Pledge until 1954. It was added in the McCarthyism hysteria of the time.