From: Ray Fischer on
stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>Savageduck wrote:
>
>> I sincerely doubt that any of them would have place a trust in "God" or
>> make such a statement of faith on something so symbolically unchristian
>> as money.
>
>The irony of "the root of all evil" has God's name placed on it....

Nitpick: The saying actually goes that the _love_ of money is the
root of all evil. 1 Tim 6:10

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq8rd5$otd$1(a)news.albasani.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hq7q1r$8q1$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>>
>>> I just don't see why the "religious right" in this country thinks they
>>> should be allowed to control how other people live.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>>
>> I agree with this, but why don't you expand the concept and say, "I just
>> don't see why anyone in this country thinks they should be allowed to
>> control how other people live." Only government and the law should have
>> that kind of power, and even they should be subject to the restraints of
>> the constitution. If there are no one else's rights involved, then
>> someone should be able to do whatever he/she damn well pleases.
>
>
> I have to agree with that. As long as what they do doesn't have a negative
> impact on my life (like stealing from me or burning down my house etc) or
> violate -my- rights, they should be allowed to do whatever they want.
>
> Stephanie

Right. And, it's the job of the courts to decide when exercising your rights
infringes on someone else's rights and shouldn't be allowed....there are
always conflicts in this realm, and the courts are kept busy as a
result......Now, please tell me why the bartender in Palo Alto shouldn't be
allowed to put a sign on his entrance door saying, "This is a smoking bar.
If you come in here, you will be subjected to second hand smoke. There are
lots of non-smoking bars in town....Please go to one of them if you don't
like second hand smoke." Whose rights are being violated by that sign, and
are the violations bad enough to overshadow the right of the bar owner to
operate a smoking bar?

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq8rd5$otd$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hq7q1r$8q1$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>>> I just don't see why the "religious right" in this country thinks they
>>>> should be allowed to control how other people live.
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie
>>>>
>>> I agree with this, but why don't you expand the concept and say, "I just
>>> don't see why anyone in this country thinks they should be allowed to
>>> control how other people live." Only government and the law should have
>>> that kind of power, and even they should be subject to the restraints of
>>> the constitution. If there are no one else's rights involved, then
>>> someone should be able to do whatever he/she damn well pleases.
>>
>>
>> I have to agree with that. As long as what they do doesn't have a negative
>> impact on my life (like stealing from me or burning down my house etc) or
>> violate -my- rights, they should be allowed to do whatever they want.
>>
>> Stephanie
>
>Right. And, it's the job of the courts to decide when exercising your rights
>infringes on someone else's rights and shouldn't be allowed....there are
>always conflicts in this realm, and the courts are kept busy as a
>result......Now, please tell me why the bartender in Palo Alto shouldn't be
>allowed to put a sign on his entrance door saying, "This is a smoking bar.
>If you come in here, you will be subjected to second hand smoke. There are
>lots of non-smoking bars in town....Please go to one of them if you don't
>like second hand smoke." Whose rights are being violated by that sign, and
>are the violations bad enough to overshadow the right of the bar owner to
>operate a smoking bar?

What of the rights of the bartender and waitress to a safe work
environment?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq8snu$qre$2(a)news.albasani.net...
> Savageduck wrote:
>
>> I sincerely doubt that any of them would have place a trust in "God" or
>> make such a statement of faith on something so symbolically unchristian
>> as money.
>
> The irony of "the root of all evil" has God's name placed on it....
>
> Stephanie

Reminds me of my dad's favorite bible quotation...Ecclesiastes 10,
19....where it says, "A feast is for laughter, and wine maketh merry, but
money answereth all things."

From: Pete Stavrakoglou on
<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq7veu$hmp$1(a)news.albasani.net...
> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hq7okb$6e0$2(a)news.albasani.net...
>>> David Ruether wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>>>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>>>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>>>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>>>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>>>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>>>> --DR
>>>
>>> While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
>>> think it has any place in the government because who knows if what
>>> "Their God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case we
>>> are discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations, there
>>> are a variety of ways He is viewed.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>
>> Are you suggesting that people of faith have no business being active in
>> government?
>
> They have no business trying to impose their faith on other people if that
> is why they are being active.
>
> They also have no business trying to control what other people do based on
> their faith or religious beliefs. As I stated, I am a person of faith, I
> am active in government but would NEVER use the government to force my
> religious beliefs on other people.
>
> While the founding fathers felt religion was needed to guide the country,
> they also created separation of church and state for good reason.
>
> Stephanie

I'm still looking for that "separation of church and state" clause in the
Constitution but still haven't found it. What I do find in the Constitution
is that the governement cannot involve itself in religion but those of
religious faith have the right to be involved in government. There is
separation of the state from the church but not vice versa.