Dakoth

Ah but neither is the public school system that is some thing that is a catch 22. If you believe religion has no place in public schools then naturally it has no place in the military. So if a priest of moderate tone wanted to be a crisis counselor in a public school that is ok, as long as the childeren were given a choice if they wanted to talk to him/her or not?Unfortunatly if you remove religion from the military every person who believes something then must be given a weekend pass other wise the government is limiting their ability to worship. While you made posts you still couldn't refrane from an attack of intelligence.

Bush is in favor of gay unions he said so himself. I will say it again marraige was a religious ceremony long before it had anything to do with the government. So you will have to forgive the very deepseated feelings most religious people have concerning marriage.

Are you trying to say Islam is paganistic in nature? Also, Id say the problem lies in the term witch. Id say when most hear that term they either think of the evil Halloween version or devil-worshippers. Wicca would not be the first thought of many. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No I have tried to convey the point that religions other than christian are still safe and have not been limitted by our government.

As usual tolerance with exceptions, I am tolerant unless. How has the majority of the christian law makers not been? I have not even seen paganism out lawed, the native Americans are still free to worship their gods, muslims can still worship Allah. Your problem is that Bush spoke his mind and it differs from what you think, he is just as entitled to his opinion as you are yours. Now if he acts on that opinion then that is where the problem comes in.

You are one of those people Hades does that mean you should not be allowed to run for office? Sorry to say but there is no one on this earth that can separate themselves from their beliefs (beliefs period, no adjective need be applied.) it is one of the things that make us different from one another. The important thing is that people are tolerent of others point of view.

No amount of laws will stop these things from happening because you can not seperate a person from their beliefs, or are you under the belief no one that has religion should be allowed to run for office?

The only thing protected by the constitution is that there will be no laws made governing what is a religion and what is not. Bush is still entitled to his opinion it only becomes wrong if he tries to act on it. Comissar can you ever have a debate without insulting someone, or telling everyone how intelligent you are? I feel it is funny that The military was brought up again. Why are people who believe religion has no part in our governmetn even supporing it in our military, after all no relgion belongs there it being a part of our government and all.

Not all of them, maybe. But a lot of them are factual. It's possible to argue that Iraq had WMD until just prior to the war (when they were shipped to Syria, presumably -- if terrorists had them they'd have been used by now). But it's not possible to argue that the Duelfer report reached that conclusion, or that a majority of experts believe that Iraq had WMD. Both statements are verifiably false, and a majority of Bush supporters polled believed that those statements were true. What's amusing is that many Bush supporters don't seem to even listen to Bush and his administration. 75% of Bush supporters believed that the Bush administration is claiming that Saddam Hussein was providing major support for al-Qaeda or was directly involved in 9-11. The administration is making no such claims. That's not a knock on Bush supporters, incidentally; Kerry supporters are even more wrong on that question. A majority of Bush supporters are also wrong about on how unpopular the Iraq war is abroad, both in the world at large and in the Islamic world in particular. But this isn't a big deal; many Bush supporters don't care about world opinion in the first place, so there's no reason to expect them to know the answer to that question. And majorities of the Bush supporters polled do not know Bush's policies on specific issues; Kyoto, the ICC, the land mine ban, etc. You see this effect wherever Bush's policies are not supported by his supporters. They simply assume that Bush agrees with them. Kerry's supporters are much better at knowing what their candidate's policies would have been. Whether this is good or bad depends on how you think people should choose their leaders. Edit: I want to clarify that I was being facetious before: I do not support secession. At this time, anyway. :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Kerry's supporters could have never truley known what Kerry was going to do because he never stuck to his position on issues. Also I have stated that I hunt in the past and I don't recall being able to hunt anything with out a liscence or while in season. Now that I think about it, I do think you can hunt prarie dogs with out a liscence and the season is year round but you would have to ask someone from out west to know for sure. Oh yes I felt he was 100% believeble when he said he would raise taxes on the rich. I can see it now (president Kerry walks into room) Mrs. Kerry: hi honey how was your day? President Kerry: Oh it was great dear, I got the tax hike for the rich passed. Now we will have to pay another 5 million in taxes a year. Mrs. Kerry: President Kerry: Yeah isn't it great. Mrs. Kerry: long silence Mrs. Kerry Are you really that stupid? President Kerry:

Then you never read all of Comissars posts have you he flat out stated some of the states, obviously more than 2 too, forced Jefferson to add creator into the constitution or they wouldn't rattify it. So I will say it again while not all the founding fathers thought religious refrences in government were bad, unlike you or Comissar. Once again the point I brought up was what if you are given the choice to abstain from saying under god, or from the pledge period would it then be acceptable for me to say it with under god in it and you to say it with out it? After all this is school and not the Congressional building, ah thats right most of you guys think the religious right tries to brain wash your kids to become believers in school. No my point was you can not tell a religious person just by looking at them so how do you know what kind of judge you are facing. Once again you make it into a church state issue and I have yet to go there. If a judge is fair and impartial he will be that way with or without those words near him. I am sure many muslims, buddists and atheists are judged by christian judges all the time, so once again if he is going to discriminate he will do it reguardless if those words are present or not. I couldn't agree more just as much by people like you as people on the far right. God means many things to many people, ask a mindu, muslim, jew and christian who God is and they will all give you different answers try it some time and you will see why those religions don't always see eye to eye. So my point is valid those words only have power because you give it to them, notice how you ascribe the phrase to christianity even though a jew, muslim, or even a satanist could use it equally. All it is is a refrence to religion it doesn't even state anything specific enough so you could single it out as christian. The reason I keep bring things like that up is to show you truly don't believe religion has no place in a government facility. You and comisar are the ones pushing the christian state issue not me, ever time I have brought an example up you will notice I have said if people are given and option all I ever get is seperation of church and state to come out of your mouths. I don't believe a public school should be like a private school but to many times I see on the news where a teacher does something like say a prayer in class and someone goes into complete melt down over it. As I have said the phrase in God we trust can mean the same to all those other people the only one it doesn't work for is the atheists. I also know that it is your country too but it isn't, or at least that I have seen, the religious right suing every chance they get to enforce something that was really meant to be used that way. I get it see thats the whole thing you lump all christians into one pile the extremists and guess what thats not the way it is someone may have brainwashed you into believing it but that doesn't make it true. I believe most christians would let atheists live their lives as they wished, if they didn't how many times a weak; since religious people are a majority appearantly; would there be a knock at your door with someone attempting to "save" you? No what I said was if the church doesn't look after its own interests the government will not either. As I said everyone seems to think big oil is behind Bush, Kerry was married to Theresa Heinz, Cheney and Haliburton, so on and so forth. Also I will most assuradly use the lobbiests because big buisness when taken as a whole would eclipse the number the church could ever hope for. So you belive the church should have no say in the government that could revoke its tax exempt status on a whim, or tax them to a point to force them under ground, interesting. Thats utter bull**** what I ssaid was the church is run by an imperfect being therefore just as prone to problems as anything else that includes the secular world. So what I have tried to say is don't expect anything more from the church than you would from the government, something you don't seem to be able to do. I never excused them from their wrong doings I just gave examples of bad people in the secular world, hoping to make you relise that it isn't religion that makes a bad person. No but I have read the words you tried to put in my mouth. No what it boils down to is this I believe differently than you, it is ok for you to force your non belief on me because some idiot did the same to you in the 50's. I never once said I wanted a church state, I never once gave an example were an atheist would be forced to recite anything. Here is an example Why can I not say the pledge and add under god while you say it and leave it out. Thats all I want to know. The funny thing is is you and coomissar both dod the samething. I never once said join my faith or go to hell, I admitted that a lot of christians would consider me a bad christian, but as usual anyone with faith is a right wing nut right? At least thats the way you make it sound in your posts. One last thing and that is religion in the Military right or wrong?

I think the Daily show is alright and yeah I have seen some pretty funny things come from it about both sides. Case in point when he was making fun of Dan Rather about his snaffu concerning Bush's National Gaurd record, something if he was hard line liberal he would have never done. Seems to me while he nit picks the republicans more, he makes fun of the obsurdities of politics in general. As far as impartiality well he doesn't have to be his show is a parody of a news show not an actual news show. Edit: Quite frankly no matter who won he would have tons of material because both candidates did and said obsurd things through the race for president. Why would their white house stay be any different? Edit: Sorry guys had to edit this one gave the wrong reporter.

Really could have fooled me. IBM doesn't get a vote but if the CEO left the firm he could run for office. If a pastor left his calling to be in Polotics would there be a problem? No debate because leaving a loop hole for a church state is not what I have said. What I said was if all the founding fathers thought as Jefferson and Madison there would have been no addition of creator, and the oath or affirmation would not take place over a holy book which ever one it may be. No what I was drawing attention to is this " obsolete : to invoke the name of (a sacred being) in an oath" in our day and age this is an obsolete term. So you agree that actions speak just as loud as woeds then? Good because the fact that it is normally done over a religious book should speak volumes, justa s the president is normally "sworn" into office over it. My point exactly it only is important if you belive if you don't it's just words, so again why do you care if you don't believe. Hell it isn't even a bible verse, or a direct quote from the christian bible. As far as I am concerned it could mean just as much in Odin I trust, or In Osirus I trust, they usually capitalised god and gods when talking about their dieties too. The thing is you atribute it to christianity because they are the religious majority that got it voted in appearantly even though the only link is it was them that pushed for it. What the arguement started out as for me is how some one who claims to be tolerent and open minded shuts the door when some one brings up contrary veiws. Which is why I keep stating the fact that if you take a count of everyone on your side you will find at least an equal number on the other that thinks different. So before you spout about how religion isn't any good or has done horrible things understand that that same paper that protects your right not to have religion protects the other sides to have it. So please while being so tolerent of others views try not to step on their faith.

No what rules my life is my own moral compass because I know just as man misuses the church he also misuses government, and science. Heh go ahead as a matter of fact why not have sex with a man and your girlfriend in a strip club while reading verses from the satanic bible. It really doesn't bother me if thats what you want. Hell I have done all of those things, except for the gay sex. As I said those extremists would lump me into the same category as you.

Glad to hear that so do you back the worldly leaders that have commited some of the worst atrosities known to man? WHile the church might have its bad people so do the governments ans scientists of the world. WHat was the name of the nazi scientist that did all those experiments on the Jews during WW 2? Man if only I wasn't so lazy. Agreed both sides need to back down a bit. Also yes that exact situation arose around the general area where I live and he got in big time trouble for it. Wish I had the specifics but alas it happened a few years back.

While I don't adovocate the forcing of anything, how does it make you believe? There is one gaping hole in that theory ~Di it is the people not the words. That Judge you speak of would treat you the same no matter if those words were there or not. If he is predisposed to think badly of you because you are not a christian he will do it weather those words are there or not it is a simple fact of life, the same goes for the comunities. If atheists are given the choice not to participate why not if they are not forced into religion why can not a teacher who has religion ask for a moment of silence so indiviuals can say a prayer if they wish for a student that died in a car crash. Once again just words that don't force anything if you are atheist it should mean nothing to you. It should mean the same as having put in dogs we trust on our money. Really well if you truly belive in the separation of church and state why are there any special conditions that need to be met? The church gets no representation in our government yet is forced to abide by its decisions and laws. Remember the Boston tea party? No taxation without representation. Quite right there are many hipocritical things the ruling members of the churches have done over the many ryears of established religion. Once again it is not the actual church or the teachings but the failings of man that have done those things. As for broken promises to the government well when they learn to keep them thats when they can come down on anyone else, until then you reap what you sow. Thats funny I wouldn't have even thought twice about it even 3 blocks away. I also think its funny that you speak of tolerance all the while raging against chritians. How soon we forget. You know I love debating with you because everytime you post you give me all the amuntion I need. You did see where I quoted the Bill of Rights correct? Not only was religion mentioned in the fist amendment it was the first provision. I never said either of those men didn't have a problem with the clergy I said that they must have thought highly enough of religion to make it the first provisin of the first amendmant. As for your semantical game. Swear 1 : to utter or take solemnly (an oath) 2 a : to assert as true or promise under oath <a sworn affidavit> b : to assert or promise emphatically or earnestly <swore to uphold the Constitution> 3 a : to put to an oath : administer an oath to b : to bind by an oath <swore them to secrecy> 4 obsolete : to invoke the name of (a sacred being) in an oath affirm 1 a : VALIDATE, CONFIRM b : to state positively 2 : to assert (as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed 3 : to express dedication to intransitive senses Looks to me like they mean pretty darn close to the same thing, probably why they are interchangable. Also notice how the dictionary states that the use of swear or invoking the name of a diety is obsolete. Christianity is not the only established religion out there Comissar so if the first eddition of superman comic was your god then wouldn't that be the same for you as a christian swearing or affirming on the bible. Wouldn't that also infringe on the separation of church and state if a judge who believed it was his god brought it to his bench every day. See your problem Comissar is you believe me to be an extreme right wing christian when in fact those fundamentalists would call me a bad christian and lump me into the same basic group they do you. I would really care less they are only words I don't believe Buddah, or Allah are my god so they are just names to me. I also don't see where it would hurt to have a statue of Buddah in a government place I think the teachings of Buddah are for the most part good. Also a statue or a reference to a religion is far from representation in our government for if it is being run like it should no statue or phrase gets to vote on bills or sign them into laws. Oh I am sorry you are quite right just like they never wrote into the constitution that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, or a public official showing he is a man of faith. AS far as Jefferson and MAdison according to you they are our only founding fathers right? It seems to me in the earliest years of our democracy people felt religion was important and voted them down didn't they. Once again you missconstrue my words I never said they wanted a theocracy just that I also think removing any reference to religion was not what the founding fathers were looking for either. Not for their political motivations or agendas though are they. Once again I bring up the Boston Tea Party and the fact that you truly don't believe in the separation of church and state. I feel you would be more comfortable with a state managed church. A tax code in a governmet that you and many others obviously feel the church should not be represented in. Again see above post. Through all your arguement and debate only one thing is clear to me the seperation of church and state is a cruch for you to lean on. The real reason you don't want references to religion there is you don't believe which is fine and a valid reason, just stop hiding behind smoke and mirrors. You and many others don't want religious references in government, just relise there are many on the other side that do. Am I one of them really I could care less my religion is my buisness and no one elses, I am just tired of people not giving there actual reasons and hiding behind something that no one in todays time is actually going to know how it was meant to be taken. Sorry for the long post but I am debating 2 people.

Not real sure why you quoted me but oh well. I relise it is when people in authoritative positions force some one to do something that is against their beliefs it is wrong, can you name me more than 10 incidents where this has happened in regards to religion though. All I want people to understand is there is always 2 sides to every position and because it is what we believe the only wrong is when 1 side tries to force the other to conform to what they believe is right. There are people here that believe their point of view is the only right one I have tried to show them their are very good arguements against some of the things they have brought up. Also as far as prayer in school if a football coach says a prayer before a game with his team; doesn't force anyone to pray just asks to say a prayer before hand; is it right or wrong? Edit: As far as a losing battle goes that was no more than to let him know he better get used to opposition to his ideas because they are that of a minority group.(at least here in the US.)

I am from Illinois care to comment? I don't feel like being lightened right now. :D

I agree with this ~Di but please tell me where the underlined portion of your post has happened; or is it a preventetive measure the atheists are taking to prevent the possibility? I thought preemptive strikes were looked down apon by the left. So unions should be taxed because their representatives tell their people to vote democratic because one of the gaols of the democrats is to help the working class is that a correct assessment? Yet you see no laws being passed that are forcing religious veiws on you you are still free not to believe, you still have the right to abortion (Clinton even gave you the right to late term abortions) heck your right to not have religious refrence any where in government is considered more important than somes belief and want to have it there. Is prayer in school legal? I am not talking about school sponsored prayer I mean a teacher or student sits down for lunch do they have the right to say a prayer before lunch, out loud? Not a speach or a proclimation but audible enough for lets say the people sitting next to him/ her to hear? What I have been arguing against is the fact that atheist believe there should be no rference to anything religious in our government. They have attacked some thing even as benign as the phrase in god we trust that appears on our money. My question is why do they care it is only a refrence to religion it is not forcing them to worship, or to believe. Edit: On the union note in the state of Illinois union BAs go out on election day to known democratic voters and motivate them to vote. You see for every evil the church comits there is a secular body that does the same the fact that people turn a blind eye to that is what makes the maddest.

Just as they can not force their non belief on the Christians my problem with Vincent and Commissar ~Di is they seem not to understand that. Comissar flat out said the separation of church and state had nothing to do with the church being protected from the state and then said they should be taxed because they back political canidates, an odd statement since no atheist is taxed because he/she chooses to back a canidate. Also some atheists through the courts seek to remove all references to religion from government while claiming separation from church and state. I assert that a complete removal of anything that had to do with religion was never what the founding fathers wanted which is why through tradition or other wise we swear an oath to the truth on a bible in court, in God we trust is on our money, and the president is normally sworn in over the bible. Weather these things are just traditions or not is irrelevent to the arguemant if they wanted no religion references in our gooverment they would have never let them in in the first place.

You just firmly stated that the constitution of the United States holds no meaning or Value you for you, because interpritation is all we have. So the US would be better off to scrap the constitution and start over? Also why should God be removed last I heard religious folks out number the atheists and the principle our government normally ascribes to is majority rules.

I Actually you are doing it right now you are in everyones face about how evil, rude, and wrong religion is. How did you vote was it for a democrat that believes in the complete removal of all refernce to religion in schools. Seems to me my rights are limited if they say I can not pray in school. First by having been so general that is the only conclusion one could come to. Lets face it America believes the more education you get the smarter you are, if it didn't there would not be a huge push for college after highschool. By using my quote you put me forth as an example even if it was not ment to be, therefore I and people like me become those of sub-par intelligence. If schooling is not how you measure intelligence then how do you? Then you are fightin a losing battle for the underlined portion of that statement because just as politics has a vested interest in the church, so to does the church have a vested interest in politics. Please tell me where I fit in ot all of that. Also atheists do have a core focal point and that is the church, well more like the things the church tries to influence. Who out of everyone wants the removal of all religion from all government the most? I have not said they are wrong for believing that just that most atheists can rally around the fact they don't believe in religion so it shouldn't be there.

Uh how is that any different than the people that have gotten the pledge of allegence removed from public schools siting the separation of church and state as the basis. There is no law that said you had to say it, the pledge was a tradition, not only that but the school house is far from congress or the president. " Now where does it mention the complete removal of all references to religion and god in there again? That last sentence with the part you underlined again shows that the founding fathers wanted to protect the church from the state more than vise versa. I know this will probably make you mad but i think a word in that sentence needs to be clarified. Thus 1 : in this or that manner or way 2 : to this degree or extent : SO 3 : because of this or that : HENCE, CONSEQUENTLY 4 : as an example He never said the US government would be void of any reference to religion, just that in order to protect the freedom of religious choice the US government shouldn't make laws governing the establishment, or exercise of any religion. Unfortunatly the extreme left uses that seperation of church and state to remove all refrences to any religion from anything that has to do even slightly with our government. After reading and quoting MR. Jefferson how do you think he would feel about removing the pledge of allegence because of the reference to God.

As opposed to you doing the same? As someone said before freedom of speech protects unpopular speech more times than popular.

So anyone not as sducated as you has subpar intelligence? Wow you just insulted a lot of people. Really so all the bashing of Bush and the far right is what you consider tolerance looks to me by all the debate you have tried to change my or others views on things. Free speech one of the wonderful things our constitution affords American citizens.

I don't remember having said it was a law. What I said was if they wanted complete separation of church and state it would not have been part of any government tradition or other wise. Once again that is not a problem with religion but how it is used by people. Again I never said he wanted a church state just that the total rmoval of religion from government was also not what he was looking for. Amendment I 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. Seems to me he felt strongly enough about religion to put it in the first Amendment to the Bill of Rights along with freedom of the press and speech.

Gee thats funny because you should know I do none of those things. On a side note I think that people who claim that lack of tolerance is bad and spout intolerance are hypocrites.