PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/index.php)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - A question (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=295994)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kknudson (Post 2683258)

I also do not or may not know your religious beliefs, and one of my religous beliefs is not to question your beliefs. They are yours and I have mine.

This has become the default position behind which the religious now pathetically seek refuge - pleading immunity from criticism in exchange for not criticizing. Certainly a retreat from the position held by their religions though the ages, namely: ours is the one and only truth and you better believe it or else.

Progress of a sort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kip Foss (Post 2683750)

The nice thing about being an atheist, one of which I are, is that we are not so hidebound that we can not celebrate all religious holidays if we like. We are multi-opportunists when it comes to holidays. Some don't bother, some use the holidays to drink a beer and celebrate their non-involvement in what we see as a ridiculous rites and rituals.

Then in fact according to the original definition of the word, you do not celebrate a holiday. You may celebrate time off.

Back on topic for a moment.

Let's say you and I wish to reinact a Druidic ritual of lunar worship. While you and I are play-acting a handful of devote Druids happens by and an is enthralled and sent to religious ecstasy by what we believe is a mere reinactment of a ritual.

Did a religious service take place?

A religious rite can be what ever others perceive it to be. One can enjoy christmas w/o being a christer or halloween w/o being a goth.

Public employees praying in a public building does not violate the Establishment Clause unless it is per official policy or legislation and meets the standards established in the Lemon Test,* Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971):

Quote:

The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/eclause2.htm

We’ve seen this mostly in public schools where religious instruction is incorporated into secular lesson plans. Such cases clearly advance a religious purpose, have no secular intent, and constitute an excessive entanglement with religion.

If public employees were praying in a public building per established policy or ordinance, then a suit may be brought to have the courts examine the intent of such a policy.

*Yes, dreadful and unfortunate name, but what are you going to do…

Quote:

Originally Posted by WDBCB20 (Post 2683777)

don't give their game away. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by kip Foss (Post 2683818)

A religious rite can be what ever others perceive it to be. One can enjoy christmas w/o being a christer or halloween w/o being a goth.

Okay, let's go with that. I think you and I would agree that there are probably any number of tests we could agree on for what constitutes a religious expression, and this is but one.

Now I suggest that it doesn't matter whether the object of veneration exists or doesn't exist. What matters is the perception of existence. Does that sound right?

Aw man, nobody wants to play?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 2684012)

Aw man, nobody wants to play?

Sorry, Boss. We're too busy planning the War on Christmas for this year.