Commissar

He can not save what does not want to be saved, as I said going to him would be their choice, if you don't believe then don't go simple as that. Then you really don't believe in total seperation, just seperation where you deem it necessary, like I said before others feel differently. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, as I said, I'm in favor of total separation. If a counselor happens to be a priest in his off hours, that's fine, as long as he doesn't bring that role into the school. If religion never enters into it - which I'm stating as a condition of separation - then separation isn't violated. I'm not going into this argument again, since I doubt we can agree on it, but I will just refer you to the fact that most of the founders of this country, most of the framers of the Constitution, were deists. I'll let you look up on your own what that involves, but to go over the basic talking points, deism advocates a natural morality, based on the principles of enlightenment, the ascendancy of reason and logic, the division of civil power from religious. They disavowed the interference of any creator with the natural workings of the universe - from human affairs, basically. TJ, Madison, and Ben Franklin were deists, just to name a couple names that a modern audience would recognize. It's a thorny issue, to be sure. The military chaplains are, as you stated, something that's there more convenience than for anything else. Being on station in a ship off the coast of Iraq for six months without a chaplain would leave the crew without the option of attending a church service. Here's all I'm asking; if Christianity weren't the dominant religion in the US, would you still be in favor of religious interference in government?

Legal yes binding no, the only reason to get a marriage liscence is to enjoy the benifits government gives you. If you don't care about those then the church is indeed a good alternative. Thats quite funny because last I noticed I never said taught or manditory I said if there was a crisis councelor that was a priest that the children could . Schools offered all sorts of classes as electives that I never took. Now wich is it in the other threads you were for total seperation of church and state, if that is true it means the military too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Total separation. I outlined why I don't think military chaplains violate total separation; I also outlined why I don't think an after-school program would violate it. If a priest was a crisis counselor, fine...as long as he was there as a crisis counselor, not as a priest moonlighting as a crisis counselor. What I mean by that is, if he kept religion out of his counseling, I have no problems with it. But if he was trying to save souls, then I would.

You studied religion you tell me when was the first union done by the church? The first done by the government? You see the government only stuck their nose in it because they saw a way to make money. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Either way, a marriage is only legal today if the government licenses it. That means that marriage has become province of the government.

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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A weekend pass? Are we in 1942 or something? The difference, as I see it, is that you volunteer to go into the military, while attendance at a grade school is pretty much mandatory. And I know a lot of schools in my area have Bible study and all of that garbage after school. I have no problem with a school building being used for prayer meetings or anything like that, as long as it's not during normal school hours and not being taught to the kids.

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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course I can, Dakoth. I did it with you quite a bit in that other thread. But Taks and I have our own unique style of debate; he takes it pretty seriously, and I amuse myself. The military is not part of the policy-making government, Dakoth. I have no problems with chaplains being assigned to military units. Helps with morale and cohesion, and most military chaplains I've met aren't really the hellfire and brimstone types - they're almost more like counselors.

He's an evangelical. Have you ever met one of those nutjobs? ****. I'm going to get to read more Latin for that, aren't I? Thank you. Though you really sound like you should be wearing something pink whenever you say "Go boy!" Oh, and you're less intelligent than me.

I did make that attack on engineers. And I still think it's pretty damn funny. But I also did attack your logic, as impregnable as you may believe it to be. I don't wonder why you consider yahoos like me elitist; I just really don't care. And you may well know how to craft a logical argument; I hope we'll see you do so, someday. In the meantime, just because you run down your cute little checklist of fallacies before posting doesn't prevent your logic from being flawed. You can avoid an ad hominem, a red herring, a paper tiger, and a plucked chicken and still manage to be wrong. You just called me a yahoo and an elitist. All in one fell swoop. I've managed to avoid weeping thus far, but I'm sure it's not long in coming. The quote, actually, is arguing on the Web, not bragging. Though both apply. And as I said, I wasn't bragging; I was responding to your request for information. If you really want to know, I'll happily get into an intelligence pissing contest, just as I'll get into any sort of pissing contest. There are two main reasons for this: A) I'm sure I'll win, and B) They're so pointless they're amusing. Kind of like most of the arguments on here. Y'all can take them as seriously as you like, and believe you're making profound, significant statements, but I have yet to see anyone on this board be convinced away from their initial point, no matter what kind of facts and logic are put against them. So I do my best to have some fun, especially with those who are getting far too self-righteous. Oh, I didn't even mention that he looks like an idiot. I thought that was a given. I was referring more to his complete lack of vocabulary and his inability to think on his feet. And it's your opinion that others are not. What's your point? Not sure to what societies you're making reference... But I am sure that you're cute when your mad. All of this "my logic is better than your logic" stuff just slays me.

I don't think anyone would suggest that Clinton didn't have some shady stuff done for him, or do some shady stuff. Clinton very clearly ran to Canada during Vietnam. On the other hand, he didn't choose to paint himself as some kind of gunslinging president, as Bush has done. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, for Christ's sake. And people still buy the whole warrior image with him. Karl Rove is the real genius in that building. Bush ran from Vietnam just as quickly as Clinton did. Kerry and McCain, two guys who went and (McCain especially) served their country well, both got painted by Bush as lesser men. I still don't know how the American public allowed that to happen. McCain spent the better part of a decade as a prisoner of war, refusing to come home when offered the opportunity, preferring to stay until the others with him were released. But Bush is the war hero? I don't get it. But that's not what the thread is about; it's about Bush and religion. I do believe he has something of a bias towards people of other faiths, and especially towards those with no faith. I don't like that, at all. You can make the point that I've been quite vitriolic towards religion on this board, and that'd be true, but in all actuality I'm quite happy to let people worship as they choose, so long as it doesn't bleed into my life. I argue against the nutters handing out flyers and inviting me to church, but the average Christian who knows that personal, inner faith is far more important than a brazen and pitiful outward display gets nothing but respect from me. Just don't expect me to argue that religion should be in government, or that some religions are lesser than others. They're all equally superstitious to me, and I think for a president running a diverse country, they ought to all be equally important.

Incorrect. What I meant by that was, I tend to say things like, "People who drool on their shirts are stupid," or "People who genuinely believe the earth is less than ten thousand years old are idiots." I make statements about ideas and actions; if you happen to hold to those ideas or take those actions, well, sorry, but you fall under the auspices of intellectual inadequacy, in my mind. And yes, that preceeding sentence was intentionally pretentious. By the way, good go at shifting the blame of thread closing to poor lil' ol' me, but as I recall, you've been involved in some of those, too. Not saying I'm a saint by any means, but an argument is a lot like the tango; you can't do it by yourself. As far as the rhetorical question went...I didn't get rhetorical out of it at all. When you use a phrase like, "Exactly how well did you do X," I tend to associate that with a request for specific information. And alright, I'll grant you that Bush may not be an idiot. His style of speaking is idiotic. His policies are idiotic. His attitudes on faith and the law are idiotic. His view of the world is extraordinarily idiotic. But the man himself? True, utter genius.

sure there is. but not among C students... to yale? no, not really. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, come on. Sure he did. Just like he "qualified" for the Texas Air National Guard. And the Guard needed someone of his caliber so much that he was jumped waaaaaay to the front of the line. All this talk of paternal influence is unpatriotic, and if you keep it up, the terrorists will win.

actually, that adds up to 1290, not 1390... bush got a 1206, not much worse than you, and when he took it, it applied directly as a measure of IQ (about mid 120's, actually). i didn't do nearly as well overall (much better in math, however) though i did take them when i was a first semester junior.. apparently. congrats... not too bad... but not nearly enough to be criticizing bush as an idiot. if you do so, you should probably start barking about kerry, too, just to be fair and all... either way, bush does have multiple degrees, and contrary to your beliefs, he's not stupid. of course, you regularly feel the need to directly attack those you disagree with, particularly by criticizing their intelligence... for whatever reason i suppose it makes you feel good about yourself to be "smarter" than the general teenage population in here. you go boy! nope, the question was rhetorical anyway... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ****ing typos... 620. I'm bad at math, but I'm not that bad. But no, I generally don't critique someone's intelligence. Not on here, anyway. I don't specifically attack anyone's intelligence, but I do make generalizations about people who I find to be stupid (see: my rants on religion). I said Bush is an idiot. He is an idiot. I've got multiple degrees, too, and therefore I know just how easy it is to acquire them. And keep in mind, I only brought this up because you asked me about it. Find a reference to my own personal accomplishments anywhere else and I'll concede. Edit: Math, not match. Good Christ. Apparently this is what happens when you do nothing but type for six straight hours.

You really want to know how well I did? 1390 total. 770 Verbal, and 520 Math. I suck ass at math. Then again, I did get a perfect 800 on both my Writing and Literature SAT IIs. My IQ is somewhere over 125, which I do not say braggingly, but just that it would have to be to qualify for the gifted programs I've been in since grade school, which all require a 125+ IQ. My alma mater, the second oldest college in the nation, was recently ranked by Princeton Review as the most academically challenging university in the US. So, if you'll forgive me, Bush's education credentials don't really impress me. The guy's an idiot. Want me to go into my LSAT scores, or are you satisfied?

huh, he was in skull & bones. you'd think that might prompt an interest in the occult... but seriously, given the advantages of 'his background' (an ivy league education, his dad in the white house) bush's ignorance of most things is pretty hard to justify. until he became president, the only foreign country he'd visited was mexico for fcuk's sake... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just because he went to an Ivy League school does not mean he received an Ivy League education. A horse that can paw the ground enough times to tell you its age is a far brighter spark than our Nero.

The in-engine movie-making can be done. See Red Vs. Blue from Halo for a very, very good example.

His callsign is Nero.

It's just...God. I don't use "gay" as an adjective all that often, but it just sounds like something a bright pink and very happy poodle would say, and it's driving a splinter of madness into my brain. Is there any way to get the board to censor specific words, or to entirely block a specific person's posts? I mean, as much as I'd hate to miss Volo turning every C into a K (and doing very little else), I'm not entirely sure I can take it anymore.

Please stop. Please.

No. I said the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. There's a difference. One is the basic document by which we govern ourselves; the other is a letter to the King of England. The Constitution preaches separation of church and state. No, not all of the founding fathers thought religious references in government were bad. They did not, however, make them a part of government. As Di has repeatedly stated, "In God We Trust" on the dollar and "Under God" in the pledge were added much, much later. And as I said, you are not obliged to swear to anything in the federal government; you argued that the difference between "swear" and "affirm" is obsolete today (which is an argument I'm still trying to get my head around), but it wasn't then. In short, the writers of the Constitution framed it so that an oath to any god on any holy book was not required. In fact, they made it illegal to require such a thing. No, but you can single it out as religious, and we've already covered that religion should be removed from government. Should be kept entirely separate from government. I have proven, over and over and over again, that this was the intent of the writers of the Consitution. You continue to allege that they wanted some religious references kept in government, yet you've provided no evidence. Of course someone does. Someone should. I can promise you that a lot of people would fly off the handle if a teacher alleged that God is a mythical being created primarily to explain natural events people couldn't understand at the time in class, too. Saying a prayer is no different in terms of making an affirmation about religion. Faith, or the lack thereof, has no place in a government establishment. I would say it has no place in public, but I know I'm never going to stop those nutjobs who come up to me and hand out "Jesus Saves!" information cards. I always ask them, "Okay, so Jesus saves...does he only take half damage, or...?" They never get it. Must not roleplay. Sorry, buddy, but you're wrong there. The Christian lobby in this country is massive. And you also make the assumption that individual business lobbies all want to team up to accomplish the same goals, which is basically suggesting that they're all socialists, in it for the good of all rather than personal gain. I have a friend who did staff work for the Congressman from his district for a while, and now works for one of the defense contractors in Washington. You want to talk about a cutthroat business, that's the very definition of it. Business lobbies are in no way unified. Even if they were, you're still missing the point. Churches get a free ride in this country on the basis that they remain disassociated from the political process. You're not even arguing that they weren't involved this past election, so you must admit that they clearly violated the rules that keep them tax exempt. Now, you sound like a Republican; Republicans love to enforce the rules, don't they? I mean, if we were talking about a black guy selling crack on a street corner, he'd be in jail. But when it comes to the sacred cow that is the church, they can get away with whatever they want, huh? We are in no way forcing disbelief on you. If we were, we'd be advocating something like, "In No God Do We Trust, As God Does Not Exist" on the dollar. You'll note we've simply been suggesting that religion be kept separate from government, not obliterated by it. You would argue that this country was founded on Christian principles; I would argue it was founded on Judaic, Persian, and pagan principles, among about a hundred others. There are some striking similarities between Mithras, the Persian god of war, and Jesus, for example. Immaculate conception, virgin births in December...quite a few others, too. Say what you like, but you'd go nuts if the word 'Allah' was anywhere on the dollar bill. Or Mithras, for that matter. I don't care how strong your faith is. Anyone who argues that religion should have a role in government is a nut, right wing or left wing. Completely voluntary in the military. Unsure of what you're getting at here. I can tell you from personal experience that a member of the military is not required to do anything related to religion. Despite what Full Metal Jacket might have taught you.

I've never had an abortion (I lack the proper equipment), and my girlfriend wouldn't do it. Yet I'm still very pro-choice, and would be worried at an overturn of Roe v. Wade. Like so many things, it's the principal.

Well, good. There's no need to respect a viewpoint that says Christianity should have a role in our government (and that's what people are arguing for when they argue about 'religion,' as wel all know...Muslims don't make this argument). You know, since the election everyone's been doing "The sky is falling!" routine and insisting that Democrats need some sort of detente with Republicans over issues like this. I don't think so. They say that blue states need to get back in touch with red states. I don't think so. I think we need to stop trying to entice votes away from the Republican party and start getting more votes of our own. So if we disagree, fine. I don't want to destroy any religion, I just want it out of my government. I don't want to make people happy with the idea of Bob and Fred getting married, I just want to prevent them from preventing it. I'll never understand how equal rights and anti-theocracy became losing issues, but somehow we let it happen. It needs to stop.

You know what? Bottom line. If I have to be tolerant of your religious views, you have to be tolerant of me sleeping with another man, or having premarital sex with my girlfriend in a position other than missionary, or, for that matter, watching porn or going to a strip club - even on a Sunday.

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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point is, the church has been behind the evolution of human knowledge and social attitudes by at least fifty years ever since the Dark Ages. Christianity picks and chooses what it wishes from the Bible, and the rest is just so much filler. I refer to the passages about how often you may beat your wife and when you can and cannot have your son stoned at the city gates. It's a vastly outdated work which has been misinterpreted and mistranslated so many times over that any sort of theology gotten from it is purely the invention of the getter. If that's what you want to rule your life, go for it. Me, I'll stay on the bleeding edge - where I won't be beating my wife or stoning my son.

I said the provision in the Constitution is to protect the state from the Church; there's nothing about that statement precluding me from suggesting that it works both ways. Furthermore, your no taxation, no representation argument doesn't make any sense. Look at a corporation; a corporation is taxed, yet last I heard, IBM doesn't get a vote. Taxation without representation refers to people, not organizations. If everything that's taxed had to be represented in the US government, the amount of votes cast in an election would expand exponentially. Business and most other organizations in this country are taxed; they're also free to run ads for campaigns and do all sorts of other things involved with politics. Churches are not taxed; they are not allowed to be political. That's the trade-off. When churches violate those rules, they should lose their tax-exempt status. Why is that so difficult to understand? If you want to keep arguing that the founding fathers really tried to leave loopholes to let some religion in, I'm game. You have no historical evidence on your side, of course. I've chosen quotes from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson because they're two of the most promiment people involved in the drafting of the Constitution; if you want me to start pulling passages from Charles Pinckney or William Few or Jacob Broom or Rufus King or George Clymer, I can. You say the difference between swear and affirm is obsolete...it wasn't in the late 18th century, which is why the provision is in there in the first place. I'm doing my best to understand what the hell you're arguing here, but I'm coming up blank. Then how does suggesting that "In God We Trust" written on the dollar bill is proof that the founding fathers wanted religious involvement in the government? You defeated your own argument. What the hell? I've said repeatedly that I don't believe in religion. This whole argument is about people like me who don't think religion has a place in government because we do not believe in it and the Constitution enforces our right not to have to deal with it if we choose not to.

The season finale of Maher's HBO show was hilarious. I refer to the Alan Simpson interview. And yes, he very obviously is a liberal, but he doesn't ever make claims to impartiality, either. He professes an extreme dislike of religion and he doesn't hide the fact that he thinks Bush is a moron. This doesn't prevent him from lampooning figures on the left, though, which seems to be something the right is incapable of; they'll attack lefties all day long, but I've never seen any of these Fox shows (except occasionally for O'Reilly, who I actually like and just happen to disagree with most of the time) go after Republicans. On a side note, though it happened years ago, anyone else catch O'Reilly's interview with Jenna Jameson? I have no problem with what the folks on Fox News do, except for when they claim impartiality. I think John Stewart has a fair claim to impartiality because he hits everybody, not just the guys he doesn't like. There were plenty of Kerry jokes on The Daily Show.

well, most people that go to church pay taxes. HMMMM that was diffictult good thing I am a genuss. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Churches themselves are tax-exempt. I leave the irony of claiming to be a genius while not spelling the world correctly to others.