Okay, so explain that then, please. How?
That’s not an answer though. This is the U.S. and we have a First Amendment.
Huh? Not on my doorstep they aren’t.
My definition of “soliciting” includes visitors to my doorstep trying to sell me on their religion.
And I think my definition fits the legal one, too, at least around these parts.
But perhaps it varies in different jurisdictions.
In any case, I, for one, have expressed my displeasure to all proselytizers who have ignored my two “No soliciting. No exceptions” signs on my front door.
Not one has ever said “But I can legally ignore those signs!”
Yes! Very much so.
For instance:
A Christian carrying a big cross in front of City Hall is protected by the First Amendment.
A government putting up a big cross on City Hall, and not allowing any other religious displays, is not.
For some reason it is very easy to convince people they are being persecuted, even when they are the majority in control. I’m not sure why. I think maybe people want to play the part of the victim, perhaps for sympathy.
So persecuting them would be the proper thing to do?
You can’t make me.
Look, I’m the closest one in this thread to be defending the notion of Christianity being bashed in the US, and even I have backed away from the argument that they are ‘persecuted’.
It might be worth having a discussion if an actual Christian came along and wanted to defend that position, but absent that happening this thread is pointless.
I’m not a Christian, so I’m certainly not the best person to be carrying water for them.
Suffice it to say, that despite my lack of belief I still think it’s rather obvious that the founding fathers didn’t intend for the first amendment to abolish religion from the public square, rather to prohibit an official state religion.
Displaying religious things or having religious activities on public property and using public resources can and should be debated. But it should not, IMHO, be a constitutional issue.
Well, no, I can’t.
Would you though? You brought it up after all.
No it’s not.
I’d like to know why you think the First Amendment is misinterpreted. You said so, so you must have thought about that. You don’t have to be a Christian.
Well, no, it doesn’t suffice to say.
If you want to discuss it in more detail, good. If not, I’ll simply say that I think you’re dead wrong, and that you’re vastly oversimplifying it, and that in general, it’s been interpreted correctly.
It most definitely should be. If you don’t want to debate it, that’s fine, just say so. I’m still going to say you’re wrong.
You realize that this is a strawman, right? Separation of church and state is not about “abolishing religion from the public square.”
This is just stating a truism.
I swear, the first time I read this I thought it was saying that Christians in America were being persecuted by the United Nations.
Me too. It’s sad that the thought that someone might express a sentiment like that on a MB is so believable in the context of this thread.
It wasn’t pleasant in majority Christian countries either. The Christian theocrats just lost. Not that that hasn’t kept them from trying to drag the clock back.
Theocrats are theocrats; the exact superstition they are being theocratic about is typically of minor consideration.
Christians are persecuted in the US in the same sense that atheists are persecuted. Some Christians whine about it, just like some atheists whine about it.
Regards,
Shodan
Atheists whine about being persecuted? Where?
Agreed.
Fine with me. We disagree on the interpretation of the first amendment regarding separation of church and state. But, it’s off topic of this thread and I’d probably be a lousy advocate of my position on the issue because I’m an atheist and really don’t care too much one way or the other.
I don’t think that distinction is as sharp as you are making it out to be. Unless by “abolish religion from the public square” you mean “prohibit any overt display of piety or religious adherence in a public space,” which is a strawman.
No, doctrinally speaking the proper thing would be for Christians themselves to live so earnestly in accordance with the teachings of Jesus (e.g., renouncing wealth, sharing their possessions, forgiving sinners, not judging others, turning the other cheek, loving their enemies, sharing hospitality and love with the despised dregs of society, etc. etc. etc.) that the worldly and corrupt element of society would start recoiling from them in uncomprehending horror again.
But that would be way outside the comfort zone of many of today’s Christians (and, to be fair, of many non-Christians as well). As things are, there is damn little about the institutional structure or ideology of modern American Christianity that might cause worldly and corrupt people—many of whom are self-professed Christians themselves—to feel even a moment’s uneasiness.
You brought it up.
I don’t think it’s off topic either.
But if you no longer want to defend it, fine.
By “government interpretations” do you mean court interpretations?