Religious doctrine: Why is there not a government organization to vet religious shows on TV? Sort of like the FDA. You cannot sell food and drugs under false pretenses. Belief is not...

newtoyou Loc: Eastport

Why is there not a government organization to vet religious shows on TV? Sort of like the FDA. You cannot sell food and drugs under false pretenses. Belief is not enough proof of the usefulness of the wh**ever. SO. I propose that before preaching, you must substantiate your beliefs. Simple. End of productive arguement. Any LLD out there listening, your floor.

bodiebill

It is called the 1st Amendment of the Constituition
Not an appropriate subject for this forum.

dancers Loc: melbourne.victoria, australia

newtoyou wrote:

Why is there not a government organization to vet religious shows on TV? Sort of like the FDA. You cannot sell food and drugs under false pretenses. Belief is not enough proof of the usefulness of the wh**ever. SO. I propose that before preaching, you must substantiate your beliefs. Simple. End of productive arguement. Any LLD out there listening, your floor.

so how is your camera working?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

bodiebill wrote:

It is called the 1st Amendment of the Constituition
Not an appropriate subject for this forum.

You are correct about the first amendment to the Constitution but I'm questioning your authority on the appropriate subject issue.
Had the OP posted somewhere other than general chit chat then yes, maybe not an appropriate subject, but, as it is posted in the non photography section, why do you believe it is inappropriate?

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

bodiebill wrote:

It is called the 1st Amendment of the Constituition
Not an appropriate subject for this forum.

General Chit Chat is for discussions not related to photography.
His post is appropriate. Perhaps provocative, but appropriate.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

ricardo7 wrote:

General Chit Chat is for discussions not related to photography.
His post is appropriate. Perhaps provocative, but appropriate.

I don't know if it's provocative and since I don't know where the OP resides, Eastport doesn't give much of a geographic location, it may well be a valid question. If Eastport is in the USA then maybe not so much, kinda borderline stupid or uneducated at the least.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

newtoyou wrote:

Why is there not a government organization to vet religious shows on TV? Sort of like the FDA. You cannot sell food and drugs under false pretenses. Belief is not enough proof of the usefulness of the wh**ever. SO. I propose that before preaching, you must substantiate your beliefs. Simple. End of productive arguement. Any LLD out there listening, your floor.

I am not a religious person (spiritual but not religious) but I support the constitution on religious freedom (which can also be freedom from religion). Religion is a matter of faith, and I believe that the government requiring people espousing their religious beliefs to prove them is unconstitutional.

newtoyou Loc: Eastport

dancers wrote:

so how is your camera working?

Well, thank you for your concern. Bill

DavidPhares Loc: Chandler, Arizona

JohnSwanda wrote:

I am not a religious person (spiritual but not religious) but I support the constitution on religious freedom (which can also be freedom from religion). Religion is a matter of faith, and I believe that the government requiring people espousing their religious beliefs to prove them is unconstitutional.

Yeah, what he said.

newtoyou Loc: Eastport

rmorrison1116 wrote:

I don't know if it's provocative and since I don't know where the OP resides, Eastport doesn't give much of a geographic location, it may well be a valid question. If Eastport is in the USA then maybe not so much, kinda borderline stupid or uneducated at the least.

Do you have newtoyou mixed up with ricardo7?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

newtoyou wrote:

Do you have newtoyou mixed up with ricardo7?

I may. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last. But my point still stands; you just have to assign it to the correct responder.

newtoyou Loc: Eastport

I have reached the conclusion that an atheistic is under the same thumb that the church has wished upon man since man made a god in his image. Pandora's box. No thanks. But I defend your right to your beliefs. Why can you not extend the same courtesy? Where is it written that anyone enjoying life must be stopped because that is not your gods way?

newtoyou Loc: Eastport

rmorrison1116 wrote:

I may. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last. But my point still stands; you just have to assign it to the correct responder.

Eastport is in the US. Area in Maryland. If you are geographicly challenged, that is in the city of Annapolis, on the west coast of the Chesapeake Bay. East coast of the U.S.Reading back reafferms that you got off track. Politically correct, but in a place maybe less appropriate than religious photography. My point is ,no ones beliefs bother me till they espouse their unwanted dogma. My god got me right the first time. Keep it to you and your fellow believers. Thank you.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

JohnSwanda wrote:

I am not a religious person (spiritual but not religious) but I support the constitution on religious freedom (which can also be freedom from religion). Religion is a matter of faith, and I believe that the government requiring people espousing their religious beliefs to prove them is unconstitutional.

What the US Constitution is saying in the first part of the first amendment is there will be no Church of the United States, like there is a Church of England. The religious head of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England is the reigning monarch. The founding fathers of the USA didn't want this practice carried over into the newly formed government. The second part says the government will not tell you what religion you may or may not practice, it's totally up to the individual. This again is the founding fathers saying the USA will not be like the country it has broken away from, as far as religious beliefs are concerned. As long as the religious policies and practices don't break the law, have at it.

newtoyou Loc: Eastport

rmorrison1116 wrote:

What the US Constitution is saying in the first pa... (show quote)

I agree with the legal side. Just why do believers have to insist I am wrong? I do not insist they are wrong. There is an infinite chance there is a god. I bow to that.Maybe a little discretion would help some people.