That was possibly the worst 'Downfall' video I have ever seen.

Also, how does that have anything to do with Pyrrho's post?

It wasn't an answer to Pyrrho's post.
It's just pointing out that Christianity doesn't need to be divorced from Government.

I'm not sure how that video demonstrates that to be honest.

It encroaches on the idea through a round about way.

Nazis were not Christian, they were Progandized to be Christian.

Keep going.  I'm interested in how that means religion should be a part of government.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 32):

It's not necessarily that any single religion should be a part of government, but more to the point, religious individuals should be able to be free and vote, work and excercize their principles whether it comes from faith principles or not.

If a Muslim wants to be President he's free too, even if he upholds Constitutional principles the Quran would agree with. (Or that he thinks the Quran agrees with).

A Christian Or Jew wants to be President he's free too, even if he upholds Old Testament ideas like hospitality (Give us your huddled masses), New Testament principles.

But it shouldn't be a requirement either.

Right. :D

what did I just watch??

Fair enough.

That's not really what was being discussed, but I can get on board with that.  Ultimately everyone has a certain set of beliefs that will influence their decisions - regardless of their faith or non-faith.

If people want to practice their beliefs in the quietness of their homes then go for it.  That's a whole other ball game then erecting a statue/monument that advertises your belief system though.  Would you agree?

I think that someone who says "I am doing this because God wants it."
Or even "Allah". Fine.

If that counts as advertising I don't care. It's their faith, and if they want to share it's beauty, then it's up to them. Not anyone else. Not the Supreme Court's decision to tamper into something it doesn't understand.

Kathulos,

Okay, that part I am unsure of and would have to think about.

However, again that's not specifically what was being discussed.  The discussion was about an actual monument that was erected, that was based on a specific religion, and whether it should A) Be allowed and B) If Allowed, mean Open season for anyone else to erect anything else they want, based on any of their own religious beliefs.

I'm for the general allowing of monuments, but at some point the number gets ridiculous.

How does that work in practice then?  So you allow ... X number of monuments?  Who decides which ones make the cut?

Well, looks like the guy is back in the news....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...?utm_hp_ref=politics

Huffington Post isn't even close to an unbiased news site, so feel free to take their slant with a grain of salt.  Still, it looks like the quote is genuine, and this is exactly the sort of thing that got him removed in the first place.

That guy should not be given any power at all.  Terrifying.

Actually I'd allow X number of monuments where X = the number of monuments that can reasonably be seen in that area. That might result in a self-policing situation. If it didn't then I'd just cancel the practice altogether. Equal representation.

If you have limited space, then don't allow permanent monuments. Let people place theirs in rotation and remove them for the next group. Use the rotation to achieve a balance between the various groups and the sizes of their respective memberships. (Clearly, this isn't going to allow for huge monuments, but a plague of the ten commandments doesn't need to be very large).

I'm reminded of places in California that had public spaces available for Christmas scenes. It wasn't fair to exclude the atheist groups, but then when they allowed them to apply, so many did that they squeezed out the religious groups. A balance needs to be found that represents the population.

It kinda sounds like that's what happened.

Which is why they should just not have them there.  People can practice their religion at home and leave it out of the public.

No. Religion is a public activity. People have a right to practice their religion in public.

I have to agree.  People have the right to unobtrusively practice their religion.  And if there's a proper place for it, they can even make a spectacle out of it.  For example, if a church choir wants to put on a public performance, I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.  If the public stage allows for anyone to perform, then anyone can perform.

Look at it this way.  Doulos, I assume you're some variety of atheist?  Well, suppose someone tried to enforce a rule that said you could only practice your atheism at home.  What would that end up looking like?

I understand that the tract-wavers and soapbox preachers can get really annoying.  They're shoving their religion in your face as obtrusively as possible.  But there are also lots of believers who practice proper religion, and don't try to rub your face in it.  Those ones have the right to practice in public, since they're not making a nuisance of themselves.

Yeah, you're right.  I'm just very concerned about the abuse that happens.  Us humans are real pieces of work.

No, we want to let people be annoying, to a certain point.  Otherwise we're really going to be trampling all over free speech.

For instance, people don't like a president.  We want to let them go out with signs and express their view.  They can't block traffic, they can't keep standing in your way and block your ability walk past, but that's a valid thing.

If someone is standing on a soap box and yelling, well you're free to walk past, or go to the other side of a street, or not even go down that street at all.  If they're outside a business and the business doesn't like it, then they may have to relocate away from businesses, but we don't want to prevent someone from standing on a soap box.  Remember the Russian protest area during the Olympics?  We don't want the US society to become this: http://www.thegailygrind.com/2...ussian-police-sochi/

If someone owns the sidewalk, then a person may have to go to the other side of the street to protest, and as long as they aren't impeding someone from going about their business, they're free to protest.  If there are enough protesters, and the protesters are possibly crazy enough, then you have the potential for a riot and you may end up moving the protest area farther away, or only letting a few people protest at a time.  Still, though, you don't want to crack down "too" hard on protesting, or expressing their viewpoint, no matter what it is.

Yeah, annoying people are annoying, but we don't want to try to legislate all annoyance out of existence.

Look, you want to stop the Westboro Baptist protesters?  Set up a band right in front of them.  They're free to line up outside a graveyard, the band lines up inside, right in front, and starts playing.  After a few minutes of trumpets right in front of their faces, they'll move.  "But funerals are supposed to be quiet."  Look, do you want to hear hateful speech or some quiet classical music (presuming a funeral is held away in the middle of a graveyard)?  10 years from now, people might start talking about how you can't have a funeral without a jazz band.

I agree.  I was wrong.

I'm glad I'm not the one that has to deal with the absurd circus of monuments but allowing it is a necessity.