TvNewsLIES.org
http://tvnewslies.org/forum/

religious zealots seem to be the issue all over
http://tvnewslies.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1659
Page 1 of 1

Author:  mga [ Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:  religious zealots seem to be the issue all over

i looked around the internet and i found that many people are getting tired of the fundamentalists shoving religion and politics down everyone's throats lately. i'm glad to see americans standing up and saying enough is enough. many feel it's becoming a turn-off for them toawrds religion.

but, the replies in this little forum were rather amusing, and, of course, i had to throw my .02 cents in as well......


http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/foru ... ents/1691/

Author:  ECSMOKELOC [ Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

Many people in the USA are standing up, but the media will have you believe that they are still sitting down.

Author:  DO.g's [ Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

It might be a good point to remind these fundies what the first amendment says in its entirety.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Redress
redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction. [<OFr. redresser.]


Amendment 1 - Freedom of religion, press
In my opinion, the single most important part of the Constitution. Some of the first colonists of the nation for which the Constitution was written had been seeking to escape religious persecution. The constitutions of several of the states prohibited public support of religion. And above all, the many varying sects of Christianity in America required that to be fair to all, there could be preference to none. It would have been disgraceful for anyone to wish to leave the United States because of religious persecution. So they decided it best to keep the government out of religion. Now, this is not to say that the United States was not or is not a religious one. Religion plays a big role in the everyday life of Americans, then and now. But what they were striving for is tolerance... something I fear contemporary Americans are lacking.
As for the press, I think they regarded a free press as almost a fourth branch of government, constantly keeping tabs on the government's activities and actions. I'm not sure what they would think of today's tabloid papers and television; but this kind or trash is a small price to pay to ensure that any news organization can rest assured that it can report freely on the activities of the government. Many other organizations in other nations have to worry about toeing the state's line or be arrested. How objective do you think a reporter can be when his life could be ended because of a critical story? :roll:

Author:  Sotek [ Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

DO.g's wrote:
Many other organizations in other nations have to worry about toeing the state's line or be arrested. How objective do you think a reporter can be when his life could be ended because of a critical story? :roll:


How objective do you think a reporter can be when his JOB could be ended because of a critical story, in an environment where losing your job is as nasty as it is now?

If a news organization doesn't toe the president's line now, they don't get to report on him anymore, because he won't talk to them.

A free press is vital to democracy, but we have a corporate press, not a free one.

Author:  mga [ Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

when bush proclaimed that "faith based" services would be used to help americans (and funded by the government) did he not, in fact, violate this amendment?

altho he did not use a specific religion, he was promoting religion via the government.

Author:  Sotek [ Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

mga wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

when bush proclaimed that "faith based" services would be used to help americans (and funded by the government) did he not, in fact, violate this amendment?


The main argument he has there is that funding isn't really a law, I think.

Author:  mga [ Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

when the government pays them, as if being on a pay roll, they are now part of the system...that's what makes it illegal.

not the tax breaks, not the tax free money donated to them by members, but being paid by the government to perform a service (that was previously done by the government)....that is where he was wrong.

but, there was no loud protests of him going ahead with that....

Author:  Catherine [ Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

Show me where there have been any loud protests over anything the Bush Bastard has done...loud protests that have meant anything to anyone except to the people who were protesting...and I might begin to feel some hope again that our country hasn't been bought and sold.

Catherine

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/