Commissar

once, actually. and he was not caught inside the USA, commissar. keep your arguments relevant. the point of patriot act is inside the USA, and was exactly what i was referring to. catching some high ranking official al-qaeda member in a cave in afghanistan hardly causes the same worry as in a mall in burbank, CA. you mean phrases like "logical reasoning" and "rational thought"? as opposed to using the more grounded phrases like "knee-jerk reaction" and "emotional response". i suppose, yes, i do use logic and reason to attack your rather knee-jerk and emotional arguments. guilty as charged. exactly where did i say that? show me, please. i did not ignore the basis of your post. your post clearly stated that these situations were the only ones you've heard about. please reread... you hear about pimps, counterfeiters and other "injusticed" folks because they are the ones that seem to be getting slighted (suddenly their actions aren't criminal, either, which makes your logic even less sensible). we don't hear about the application of the patriot act because of the reasons i've already pointed out. it has been used rather effectively on numerous occasions, more than any of the injustices you're so certain are happening. also, if you'd note, i've clearly stated that i do not agree with many parts of the act. some provide powers that are not constitutional. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, I don't buy it. If there'd been any significant arrests of terrorists in the US, we'd have heard about it, if only so our beloved generalissimo could trumpet the Act as doing its job. Your argument that it'd cause too much worry doesn't fly, since the government had no trouble with telling us to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape and to expect the worst on a monthly basis. We'd have heard about it, unless we're shipping them all off to some of our less scrupulous allies. And yes, these are the cases I've heard about; what's your point? That they didn't happen? I'm not arguing that they aren't criminals worthy of prosecution and sentencing, I'm arguing that if a college kid making fake IDs before Sept. 11, 2001 would only get a slap on the wrist, he shouldn't all of a sudden be getting ten years in a federal prison simply because terrorists also happen to be in the business of making fake IDs. "it has been used rather effectively on numerous occasions, more than any of the injustices you're so certain are happening." Has it? How do we know? And what do you consider effective? Its goal was to make it easier to arrest and prosecute terrorists, and as far as I'm aware, it's not yet been put to that particular use. You may be able to prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

That's not true. I split my history major between Eastern European studies and topics in Christian history, actually. Mostly because the pair of professors who did the Reformation, the Inquisition, and classes along those lines were a blast to study under. Looking at Christianity as a historian, I can't help but marvel at the fact that the modern religion still takes its direction from points of doctrine laid down by guys three hundred, five hundred, a thousand, fifteen hundred years ago, guys who interpreted Scripture one way and declared it canon, very often to their own particular ends. It's a sordid history, and I think that a modern, wholly objective observer - one who has never been exposed to Christianity, so a purely hypothetical being - looking over the Bible today would come to vastly different conclusions about the nature of the faith. Glossing over the enormously different tones of the Old and New Testaments, there are numerous contradictions, and even literary quarrels within the Gospels themselves. Just what statements take precedence over other statements was decided by people who've been dead for at least a couple of centuries, and yet the modern Christian religion still holds those particular views to be perfectly valid. To me, that's the exact same as holding, for example, the Malleus maleficarum, a 15th century treatise on witchcraft, written by a pair of German inquisitors, to be absolute truth. It just doesn't make sense. If we want to look at the Bible as a literary achievement, I'd conclude it's a remarkably flawed, incoherent work, as a whole, allowing the candid reader to interpret pretty much whatever the hell he wants from it. All that said, I'm not hostile to Christianity. My personal view on all religions, from ancient Egypt to modern Protestantism, is that they're all very much false. If there is such a thing as a God (which I highly doubt), I consider it the height of human arrogance to assume that we can so perfectly understand what he'd want us to do that we can instruct others. I still attend Mass from time to time, however, simply because I enjoy it. There's value in the ethics that Christianity has to offer, even if I don't agree with all - or even most - of them. But religious authority should most certainly be confined to the religious. Everyone is more than welcome to put control into the hands of a modern-day Torquemada, just so long as I don't have to.

That's not entirely true. How many times has it been reported that we've caught al-Qaeda's number three man? For that matter, how many number three men does that particular organization seem to have? We grab one at least once a month over in Iraq. I know you're the guy who loves to use them pretty phrases to attack them there arguments, but you ignored the basis of my post. If you think it's fine and dandy that anti-terrorist laws are being used to put away counterfeiters, tax evaders, pimps, and fake ID makers, all at stiffer penalties than the 'normal' law gives them because their crimes technically fall within the purview of terrorism, go ahead and say so. Give us all a laugh.

I think one of the big gripes about the Patriot Act is that it grants law enforcement agencies certain powers that don't necessarily need to be used in combatting terrorism; they can be used wherever. For instance, I've never heard of a successful terrorist arrest using the Patriot Act's powers, but I have heard of strip club owners in Vegas getting arrested, bong distributors being taken down, shady tax schemes and the like. I remember a fairly famous local case in which a college kid making fake IDs got busted by the local cops. Since manufacture of false identification has now become a federal thing, he got tried for it in a federal court and, since it's defined as a terrorist act, got sentenced to ten years. It was appealed, of course, and a much cooler-headed judge gave him six months of community service.

What's ironic is that it'd be an absolutely fantastic MMORPG setting. You'd think Microsoft would want some kind of in on that particular gold mine.

Who's going to force them to? Judges like the one in Kentucky, for example. If I went in and he offered me the choice between jail time and attending worship services, I'd go for worship services, as would everyone else. "Okay," he'll say. "What religion are you?" I'll reply that I'm an atheist, and then presumably I'll be allowed to go home, since atheists don't have any worship services. Except that's not what'll happen. He'll say that's not a viable alternative, and I'll have to do jail time, whereas the good Christian caught with an eighth of weed can go to church for a couple Sundays. Religious influence over government isn't as bad as they say it is? Tell that to 16th century Spain. Or modern-day Iran. Or Socrates. Or the current generation of twentysomethings who are going to be smuggling their Alzheimer's medication in from South Korea because our current president decided that stem cell research was offensive to God. Hey, know what? I'd be willing to bet you're some flavor of Protestant. Guess what happened to Protestants when they started being Protestants? They got burned, and not just by Spain, though that's the example I'll use since it's the easiest to follow. "Oh, but we've come farther than that! That couldn't happen anymore!" No, it couldn't. Not the burning, anyway. But the rest certainly could. Hell, it does. I gave you the example of the Kentucky judge just a few pages back. You want to claim that allowing religion a place in the power structure of a government would not lead to any persecution of dissenters, but you've got - and I'm going to make this bold - the entire history of religion arguing against you.

They protect the minority - in this country, non-Christians - from the majority. They try to make sure that no one's ever going to have to pray to a god they don't personally believe in. They try to ensure that our government stays as far from a theocracy as possible. And they get roundly maligned for it, because, as that article you put up demonstrates, the folks on your side of the aisle believe Christianity's the answer. Nevermind the fact that every theocracy on earth has been oppressive, the very antithesis of a free society. Why shouldn't they eliminate religious expression in public schools? I don't think you Christians would be very happy if the local Satan worshippers got to use the cafeteria for their weekly meetings. Or if Muslims demanded that they got to lead a prayer over the loudspeaker at football games, too. And before the Protestant one. That's the whole point; you guys are happy as hell with religion anywhere it can get its tentacles, just so long as it's your religion. I've never seen the ACLU go after the military in any significant way. Don't forget, you're not the only guy who's served on these forums. I'm quite content to let you champion the military's cause, but I think I can attest pretty strongly that there's a wide variety of views in the armed forces. It's not all Toby Keith fans, don't forget. As far as the second amendment? I'm split on that one, honestly. The way I read it, it sounds as though the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on a militia being necessary to ensure the security of a free state. To me, that point is long since moot; any armed uprising in the US would have absolutely no success. I also don't know of any states' rights issues that the ACLU has commented on, but then again, I haven't searched through a history of their lawsuits, so I could be wrong. My point is that yes, they do indeed question the government. Any thinking citizen in a democracy should. I don't care if it's "wartime" or not; nothing should ever be taken at face value from any authority. Power's nature is to perpetuate itself, by whatever means necessary. And for the record, it's not like the ACLU went dormant during the Clinton administration. They're apolitical that way.

Feel free to name one single act of terror committed by the ACLU. If you can, I'll concede your point. As for that 'article'...I'm not entirely sure that 'crap' does it justice, but I can't use any stronger words for fear of the profanity filter.

Go on. It would be lots of fun. I triple dog dare ya. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, this time I'm actually going to try and get stopped. Usually I just blow through Kentucky as fast as possible. The coke helps.

Yeah, sorry. Came late to this thread, mostly because I've taken all comers over on 'Religious Devotion in the US.' Beat 'em all senseless, and so now it's just me and Atomic Space Vixen agreeing on atheism and a couple of guys arguing about gay marriage. What happened to all of the hardcore conservatives around here? I remember back when it was a Black Isle board (that's where we all came from, isn't it?) that kind of thread would be up to thirty pages by now. I'm struggling to make it ten.

I doubt the human race will ever answer this question. I don't think that our minds are built to comprehend this kind of knowledge. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Depends on what you think the likely answer is. If it really is a guy with a big beard and a white cloak, then no, our minds likely are not meant to handle that kind of knowledge. If, on the other hand, it ends up being a rather dry mathematical equation, well...I think we'll handle it.

Yup. Very, very unconstitutional. I think even our staunch defenders of religious interaction with politics (and they all seem to have disappeared from the thread) would agree. Though I'm almost tempted to drive down to Kentucky with a gram or so of a coke. When I come before this judge, I'm going to claim that my worship to Bacchus, god of revelry, involves me snorting several lines and having sex with as many strippers as possible every Saturday night. He couldn't argue that that's not my faith, could he?

So what created God, then? I know, I know...he's the supreme being, nothing created him. But what you're arguing there is that it's okay for God to exist without having been created, but it's not okay for an explosion to exist without having been created. What's so maddening about this debate is that none of us will ever know the answer. A hundred, five hundred, a thousand years from now...at some point, humans are going to figure it out. We're just not going to be around to see it.

Got this off the news on the long, long drive home tonight. They mentioned the judge's name, but I've forgotten it. I'm sure someone could dig it up if they doubt me. Anyway, there's a federal judge in Kentucky who's been pursuing alternative sentencing; namely, instead of jailtime, he requires those convicted of certain crimes (mostly drug possession) to attend "worship services." The ACLU is preparing a lawsuit, of course, but the judge claims it doesn't violate the Constitution, as it's optional (the other option being going to jail), and he doesn't specify which flavor of worship services need be attended. The judge admits to being a devout Protestant.

Are you writing to us from the future or something? Do religions really get knocked around so much that they end up a hunted minority, rather than the dominant, all-powerful majority that they are in my poor little 2005 version of America? Please tell me if that's the case, because I just might quit smoking to try and make it long enough to see it. Seriously, where do you get the idea that religious folks are second-class citizens? You can't get elected in this country anymore without doing at least sixteen stump speeches on how much you love Baby Jesus, and it's only getting worse. Which is great for all you guys who enjoy religion; for my part, I'd rather not have to buy my new lungs from South Korea because my government was pretty sure the Gospel according to Luke had something in it about stem cell research.

Perhaps I'm mischaracterizing what you said. What I understand from your post is that you are a liberal intellectual elite because you can read. However, if that weren't your meaning, I'll take it back. At any rate, I'm happy to let folks read our posts and decide. At any rate, we have more in common than you know. After all, I'm a liberal intellectual elite inasmuchas I can read. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I'd say it's fair to suggest that you're quoting out of context. And to get a bit back on topic, I'm not really sure where you even needed to bring the American military in. No one, as far as I can tell, has advocated the violent uprising of the non-religious in the States; I sure didn't. I didn't even adocate that religious folks stay out of politics. Though if wishing made it so, of course I'd prefer that people who honestly and fervently believe some guy in outer space is telling them how to live their lives through a two thousand year-old book, written by a wide spectrum of often conflicting authors, the very substance of which has been debated and ruled on over that two millenia by people who didn't, at varying times, know of the existence of dinosaurs, the true shape of the world, or any of the advancements of science as we know it, stayed as far away from drafting legislation that effects me and mine as possible. What's so damned amusing about all of this is that if the argument were turned on its head - if, say, we had a larger population of Muslims (or more accurately, more Muslim representatives in the House and Senate) - and they were the ones floating religious doctrine as law, you'd be on my side of the fence in a heartbeat. You know what kind of reaction it'd create if somebody suggested enforced prayer towards Mecca five times a day in schools? Or how about choice bits of the Koran hanging outside the Supreme Court? The bottom line is, if a legislator floated an idea for new laws based on a religion that wasn't your own, you'd at the very least have to be pried off the ceiling, which is pretty much the same reaction people like me have whenever some blowhard gets up there and starts jabbering about the Ten Commandments or what a great idea working time for prayer - non-denominational, of course - into the school day would be.

Yeah, but mine was a real language.

We weren't. I was arguing semantics and that the ACLU aren't anti-Christianity. Oh, and apparently at some point I proclaimed myself an intellectual liberal elite. Which I didn't, but I will now. On the other hand, I've never seen that as anything negative. It's only the conservative right that manages to make 'intellectual' an insult.

Contra negante veritatem nulla est disputatio.

Because the ACLU has the established policy of trying to ensure American civil liberties, nothing more. They believe in the neo-nazis' right to say what they want to say in a public forum. You think they like them? Please. Why do they go after the church? Funny you should ask. You see, churches in this country enjoy tax-exempt status, providing they abide by a few rules. One of those rules is keeping its religious collective nose out of politics. That's why you saw the ACLU going nuts this last presidential election, as well as anyone else who thought those good old-fashioned Southern churches were kind of crossing a line when stating that a vote for Kerry was a vote for the devil. As for your statement that religious people have always been in power in our government, I have to wonder...have they? Take a look at two of our best presidents, Jefferson and Lincoln. Read Jefferson's papers, anyway, just because it'll put all this, "He didn't really want to build a wall between church and government!" nonsense to a stop. And Lincoln? Well, the curious thing about Lincoln is that in his speeches, papers, and all collected remarks before he began his run for the presidency, he doesn't mention God or religion once. Not a single time. You can draw your own conclusions about that, I'm just suggesting that maybe not everybody to come down the pipe has been as evangelical as our current generalissimo. Oh, and I'll also give you time to retract that earlier statement that all members of the armed forces are religious, perhaps even moreso than the normal populace. That's the trouble with the internet, isn't it? You just never know who's on the other side of the screen, and what they might do for a living.

I think the greatest difficulty in resolving this sort of issue is the unbelievable lack of comprehension we have between differing religious views. And I don't just mean believers and non-believers. Religion (or lack thereof) is a deeply personal thing, likely different for every single person. I, as an agnostic (at best), cannot possibly fathom how someone could be so sure of God's will as to claim to be speaking in His name. Likewise, a true-blue, deeply religious conservative probably has absolutely no idea how I can have such doubts. It's natural for a human being to believe him or herself right in his or her convictions, and therefore anyone who disagrees is likely a fool. Now, we don't take this self-confidence to such a degree on everyday issues, but on things we see as of great importance, we tend to believe it's impossible we could be so foolish as to come to the wrong conclusion. On the religious side of things, such confidence is bolstered by thousands of years and hundreds of millions of allies; on the non-religious side, it's bolstered by the reliance on 'reason' and the comfort of not having to take something purely on faith. And these are the two extremes of the spectrum; there are various scales throughout it, from the cheerful, extroverted Southern Baptists to the quiet New England Roman Catholics who don't talk much about their religion, and a thousand others. We have these often heated disagreements precisely because we have absolutely no way of understanding the other's point of view. Those of us on the non-believer side can say things like, "We are all atheists; we just happen to believe in one god less than you. When you understand why you don't believe in Zeus or Mithras, you'll understand why we don't believe in your god." But such arguments don't work, precisely because faith isn't something that can be assailed with logic, just as a lack of belief cannot be assailed with faith. We can say that the other side has a right to believe what it wants, but we'll never be able to say that they are correct, or else we'd be with them, wouldn't we? That's the crux of the problem.

I don't feel sorry for them. Leadership may have been highjacked by religious nuts, but they've gone along with it because it means they're in power. The good thing is, at least some of them are starting to realize that maybe it's not such a good idea to flirt with theocracy. My father, for instance; very rational gent, but always votes Republican, mostly because he was a lifelong military officer. He swears he'll vote Democrat in the next election if this Kansas creationism thing doesn't get straightened out, though.