The Observation Deck

A new ad campaign is being launched to remind people to ask difficult questions and to really analyze and scrutinize the candidates before making their choice. It is not a choice to be taken lightly. No candidate is a “savior”, no god is designating “the one” to lead us. WE THE PEOPLE are making the choice.

Here is an article from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

On Eve Of New Hampshire And South Carolina Primaries, New Ads Press Presidential Candidates On Role Of Religion and Government

For the first time in a presidential election and on the eve of the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries a new series of television and newspaper ads is being launched to urge presidential candidates to protect religious freedom.

At a time when presidential candidates in both political parties are injecting religion into their campaigns at unprecedented levels, the new ads are designed to help provide a clearer understanding of where candidates stand on key issues at the intersection of religion and politics. The ads are scheduled to lead up to the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries later this month.

'First Freedom First, a joint project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, is launching the new print and TV ads to encourage voters to ask presidential candidates their positions on a wide range of issues, from end-of-life options to protecting the right of all Americans to worship…or not.'
[quote]http://www.au.org/site/News2
?JServSessionIdr012=2y03yg6q31.app13a&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9573&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241[/

quote]

In the TV and print ads, Jack Klugman and James Whitmore raise such questions as, "Who will decide my end of life care: politicians and religious right leaders, or my doctor and me?" The ads also ask candidates what they will do to protect the right of all Americans to worship...or not.

The First Freedom First Web site features ten sample questions for voters to ask candidates, such as "Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?" and, "Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?"

Klugman noted that he volunteered to participate in the ad campaign, saying, "I think these ads speak for a lot of people, both believers and non-believers, who understand that this country is founded on a basic respect for everyone's right to believe whatever they want. It's time we got back to principles that have always made America a great democracy."

If I am a Muslim and work as a cashier at a grocery store, can my employer force me to handle pork products or alcohol?

As long as you are not partaking, is it any different than an orthodox Jew who also will not eat pork products but can sell them to goyim?

If a Muslim sincerely believes that the Islamic prohibition of eating pork actually extends to handling pork, then I say go ahead and don't handle pork products — but you should also not take jobs where handling pork products is going to be an expected part of the day's work. Religious believers may legitimately expect some accommodations for their beliefs, but "accommodation" means adjusting how work is structured in order to make observance of religious beliefs easier. Accommodation cannot mean being able to take a job where you can avoid performing many basic tasks because you have religious objections to them. If your religion prevents you from doing basic, routine, and common tasks in a job, then you should find a different job.

Why not simply expect everyone to do the jobs they have been hired for?

[quote="Tracy Jones"]If a Muslim sincerely believes that the Islamic prohibition of eating pork actually extends to handling pork, then I say go ahead and don't handle pork products â€â€

Should public money be used to put in Muslim footbaths in public restrooms?

If Christians get the Ten Commandments in schools and courthouses then Muslims have every right to request and get foot baths in public restrooms. This is the reason we cannot accommodate the religious in public and/or government areas. Our founding fathers were wise to put the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. We can't have our cake and eat it too. If Christians want to fight this kind of thing they have to practice what they preach.

BTW, I don't think Muslims should have foot baths in public restrooms for the same reason I don't think "In God We Trust" should be on our money and "under God" should be in our pledge. The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

Is the government supposed to be advancing the practice of any religion?

If Christians get the Ten Commandments in schools and courthouses then Muslims have every right to request and get foot baths in public restrooms.

The Book of Exodus is also a part of the Torah..

Tracy Jones wrote:If Christians get the Ten Commandments in schools and courthouses then Muslims have every right to request and get foot baths in public restrooms. This is the reason we cannot accommodate the religious in public and/or government areas. Our founding fathers were wise to put the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. We can't have our cake and eat it too. If Christians want to fight this kind of thing they have to practice what they preach.

BTW, I don't think Muslims should have foot baths in public restrooms for the same reason I don't think "In God We Trust" should be on our money and "under God" should be in our pledge. The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

(edited)

I did not know that!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/med ... etopes.pdf

Stephen Eisel wrote:http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

(edited)

I did not know that!!!!!!!!!!!

Our history is pretty upsetting to many, they wish it could be erased and changed. Oh wait, some are editing the past and keeping it from being taught.

The truth of history can change when we keep it from being passed on.

Isn't the prohibition against pork the one that comes from Leviticus, a book that we all share?

I agree with Tracy - don't take a job where touching it would be a problem.

Leviticus 11
Clean and Unclean Food

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.
4 " 'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The coney, [a] though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
...
28 Anyone who picks up their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. They are unclean for you.