bjohn wrote:
And in most romantic languages, there is no differentiation between the words "from" and "of". In fact, they are even interchangeable in the English language, therefore Freedom of Religion means the exact same thing as Freedom from Religion.
Where on earth did you get that idea? "Of", and "From" are two different words with two completely different meanings. While some usages of the two words can be similar, in this particular context, they are most certainly used differently.
Quote:
Name me a war that has not been fought in the name of religion, and I'll give you credit. Otherwise, I'll continue to view orgainzed religion as nothing more than an instrument of genocide.
Just in US history: War of Independance, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War. Some might argue the issue with regards to the current war in Iraq.
In any case. I've named *most* wars just the US has been involved in. I'm reasonably sure that we could find many many wars that were not fought "in the name" of any particular religion. Was religion used or referenced in those wars? Of course. When most of your population is religious in one way or another, you'll use that to effect. The wars themselves are usually about politics and economics.
Quote:
Bush can pray all he wants on his own time, and he can do so even on taxpayer dollars as long as he is espousing his opinion. He was, after all, elected based upon that opinion. However, once he allows a representative of one religion into a state sponsored event, he is opening an entirely new can of worms..
Wait a minute! Are you saying that it should be illegal or something to simply "allow" a representative of a religion into a state event?
So, if someone happens to be a minister, they can't even be a guest at the event? If a guy finds a cure for cancer, we can't invite him to the white house and maybe give him an award if he also happens to be a priest? If Ghandi were alive today, he would be denied a state visit?
Sorry bud. That sort of discrimination is *exactly* what the ammendment was intended to prevent. A representative of a religion is just as free to attend and even to speak at a state event as any other person is. If Bush wants a minister to say a few words during his inauguration, that is perfectly allowable. If he wants his 5th grade teacher to speak, that's allowable too. There should be absolutely *no* legal distinction between the two. Attempting to make a distinction is a horrid violation of the principles of the first ammendment.
Quote:
By invoking a religious ceremony, he is endorsing a state religion. Like it or not, the President is not an ordinary citizen. When he speaks, he speaks for me as well, and I have a big problem with our President using "expert" representatives to spread fairy tales in my name.
He's not invoking a religious ceremony though. There will probably be a hundred people who'll give some sort of words or speech at his inauguration. What you are suggesting is that we disallow that speech if it comes from a member of the clergy. That's wrong on a lot of levels.
Quote:
What offends me is the fact that Bush is endorsing a national religion by having representatives of his religion present at an inauguration ceremony without allowing equal time to all religions and beliefs (and my Easter Bunny argument still holds here). He is the President. He is allowed to believe what he wants to believe. He is not allowed to favor one religion over another at State funded events.
What offends me is that you are using your dislike of a particular religion to cloud your judgement towards members of that religion, and to discriminate against members of that religion, and even go so far as to actively oppose the free speech of members of that religion.
If he were asking for a Rabbi or an Iman to say a few words, would you have any problems with it?
Quote:
I'd like you to try to explain this to my Mexican friend who has no comprehension of the difference between the words "of" and "from". In Spanish, de means both "of" and "from". He is quite fluent in English, by the way.
Not really. "De" means those uses of "of" and "from" that are similar. "Joe from Ramona", and "Joe of Ramona" are functionally identical (and will both use the common "de" in Spanish). But not all uses of those words are the same.
The confusion is because we use the English word "from" to mean a whole bunch of things that must be garnered in context. In Spanish, those contexual meanings might cause the use of any of the following words: "de", "desde", "por", "segun", and "entre" (or just a special ending on a root word), depending on meaning and sentence structure.
Ask your mexican friend to say the phrase "protection from crime" in Spanish. I'm reasonably positive he wont use the word "de" in there anywhere...
Edited, Wed Jan 19 22:40:59 2005 by gbaji
