Commissar

For now, yes, social conservatives seem to have won the day. But look at it like it's the 50s, and the future's pretty bright. The current generation of power brokers will be dead or retired during this decade or the next, and the younger generation will step up to the plate; it's documented that the average person under 30 in the United States today has far less of a problem with homosexuals than those over 30. Progress will be made, just not within this term or possibly the next. C'est la vie. I'm heartened by the fact that interracial marriage, to use an example, was an abhorrent idea to most Americans during the 50s and 60s, and today we think nothing of it.

Well. That was all a pleasant diversion. But getting back to my initial point, why not tax the churches? They elected Bush, I see no reason why they shouldn't have to help pay for the numerous pipe dreams ol' Nero put forward during his press conference.

I never said I wouldn't pay taxes. I said that churches ought to be taxed since they elected the idiot savant out of Texas.

I have no problem being in the minority on this. I have a long tradition to look back on. Church: The world is flat! Dissenters: We doubt it. Church: Galileo is a heretic! Galileo: I think I'm a pretty good scientist. Church: The world is less than ten thousand years old! Science: Then what the hell were these dinosaurs walking around on? Church: Slavery is God's way of allowing us to bring light and religion to heathens. Slaves: We disagree. Church: I think we'll call it, 'The Inquisition.' Heretics: Cake or death? Cake.

Exactly. Exactly exactly exactly. By the way, Dakoth, atheists are taxed - I've got the return to prove it. If an atheist group formed and managed to get tax-exempt status and then started running adds or telling its members to vote a certain way, I'd suggest they get that status revoked. That's what we're saying with churches. When a preacher stands up and says something like, "God spoke to Moses through a bush. Bushes are occasionally one of the ways God speaks to the world. You could say that what a bush says, God says," they cross the line. They support a political candidate, clearly, and are no longer apolitical, which is what the tax code requires them to be to avoid paying taxes.

No. I said that separation of church state was designed to create a wall between religion and government. It goes both ways. Church doesn't interfere with government, government doesn't interfere with church. You want to see James Madison's manifesto against what we would today call faith-based initiatives? How many quotes do I have to put up here? In fact, I've put up all kinds of historical evidence and all you've done is appeal to words on the dollar bill and the (mistaken) belief that we need to swear an oath on the Bible. The Constitution prohibits anyone from ever having to swear an oath; instead of saying, "I swear" you can say, "I affirm" and do it on whatever the hell you want. The first edition of the Superman comic, if that's your god. But since you seem to have no problem with elements of religion in the government, I'm sure you'd have no trouble backing an amendment to change 'In God We Trust' on the dollar to 'In Allah We Trust.' Or maybe a statue of Buddha in the Supreme Court building? Those are both religions that people in America follow, and since they can bleed into government at will, it's only fair that they get some representation, no? And for the last time, THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID NOT PUT THAT MOTTO ON THE DOLLAR. How many times does Di have to say it? Jefferson and Madison didn't even put the word 'Creator' in the Declaration of Independence; it was added later at the Congress when certain states wanted it, and Madison and Jefferson fought fiercely to keep it out...and lost. These guys wrote the Consitution. Keep telling me they wanted even a hint of a theocracy. You've got absolutely no evidence for it, and you never will, because it ain't true.

Not all Americans. I was wondering the same thing as the Daily Mirror.

It's a government tradition because Washington chose a Bible to be sworn in on. No other reason. It's been personal choice ever since then. What you're saying is basically like suggesting that because presidents attend that reporter banquet thing (the official name escapes me), it's a part of the government. Presidents do things that aren't officially sanctioned US law or policy all the time. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." -Thomas Jefferson' letter to the Danbury Baptists,

I argue against religious involvement in the government; I argue against faith-based initiatives and leading a country with more of an eye to the Bible than to, say, the Constitution or science or even common sense. Beyond that, I generally keep silent about my extreme dislike of religious institutions. And, speaking generally still, I actually don't disapprove of most religious organizations, just the sort of people they often produce. I was baptized Catholic, and I still attend Catholic mass now and then - especially when I can find an obscure church in Europe where they still do the service in Latin. I honestly enjoy it. What I do not enjoy are the attempts on my personal morality made by a lot of more froward Christians. Catholics don't do this, which is one of the reasons I usually like them; it's generally the more wild Southern types. Like Bush. I know plenty of religious people who never make mention of God or faith in their everyday conversations. The people who get my blood up are those who are...far too believing with it. I've got a woman at work who firmly believe God sends her premonitions. She calls them prophecies. She regaled all of her coworkers with her "prophecy" of Bush winning this election on Wednesday. She said that Roy, of Siegfried and Roy fame, was attacked by that tiger because he's gay, and God told the tiger to do it. People like that give religion a bad name and tend to become the representatives of their faith. A lot of Christians are rational human beings. A lot aren't. Same could be said for atheists, but the thing about atheists is, by their very nature they don't have that one core focal point for their rabid, bat**** insanity.

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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, what I said was, I'm tolerant of those with subpar intelligence. You're the one off on the whole education kick.

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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. That's why I'm so tolerant of those with subpar intelligence.

No they did not which is why we get mixed messages. If they thought religion should have nothing to do with civil government they would have removed everything religous from said government. We would not swear the president in over the bible, our money would not say in god we trust, we would not swear an oath on the bible to tell the truth in court. What they were afraid of is like what happened in England were the state made a church and forced all to use it, and the church went along with it because it meant wealth and power. You notice no where in the constitution does it forbid a clergyman from running for public office, odd if they wanted complete separation of church and state. It also never forbid a person from running for office if backed by a church. So please tell me again how your interpritation is right and mine is wrong? You think it is ok for the state to impose laws and taxes on the church but the church should have no opinion on government. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Swearing on the Bible is simply custom, not law. A President could get sworn in on a copy of The Joy of Sex if he wanted to. As for the rest, I think ol' TJ said it best with "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." Guy helped write the Constitution. Now tell me he was in favor of church and state merging.

Start taxing the churches. The folks who got Bush elected ought to have to pay for this garbage, not me.

I view anyone who puts faith before science, or blind belief before rational thought, or the Bible before the Consitution as less than intelligent myself. Just my opinion. I'm obviously a tool of the Devil. The neighbors are going to be straight pissed, because I got word that some angels are coming down to my apartment to do battle tonight.

There was actually a report 4 or so months back (may be longer, can't remember) where it was found that Saddam's scientists were scamming them. He was paying them large sums of money to produce WMDs, they would write glowing reports to him about success, then the scientists would keep the money for themselves. I think that it was in the Kay report, but I could be mistaken. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Finally! A reason for war! Bush can now land on an aircraft carrier in an anti-submarine warfare plane once more, and declare that we have successfully stopped Iraqi scientists from scamming Saddam Hussein. If Karl Rove reads this forum, we might see that very headline tomorrow.

So Iraq needs evidence to prove they destroyed WMD, but we can go to war without any evidence that they had WMD? Why the double standard? As far as half-truths and make-believes go...you're well aware that this is precisely how the rest of the world now sees the US administration, right? You think we'd get support on another of our preemptive wars? Even the British have said they won't follow us into another Iraq. More Americans have died since we went into Iraq than would've died if we hadn't. That's what this whole war was about, our precious security. We've lessened it rather than increased it.

And they believed religion should have nothing to do with civil government, and vice versa. How many goddamn times do people have to say this before you're going to understand it? Jesus Christ.

Too bad. Ain't my fault you're uninformed. Do your own research.

I'm soundly impressed by your appeal to authority. I actually vomited on myself in admiration! Read: Please include a cite for your thesis. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A strong and mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity ." -James Madison, Annals of Congress, Saturday, August 15th, 1789, page 730. "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man ." -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to J. Moor, 1800. "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes ." -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to von Humboldt, 1813 "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to J. Fishback, 1809 Two of the biggest participants in the drafting of the Constitution right there. You want me to go into later scholarly analysis of the issue, too?

You're speculating. A church is not required for a state to commit religious persecution. See also: Soviet Union <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not speculating, I'm repeating the views of just about every Constitutional scholar in the world. I never said a church was required for religious persecution by the state. I said the reason the Constitution was framed as it was was to avoid a church rising to dominance within the government. The church was an integral part of governments for thousands of years. They wanted to be different.

Yeah...to keep a church from becoming part of the state. To keep the state from the possibility of committing religious persecution. You're making my point for me.

Bull**** <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whoa, I completely missed that statement from Dakoth. That's just crap. The provision is in the constitution to protect the state from the church, not the other way around. You forget that many, many Americans ended up in America during the founding days to escape religious persecution. The founding fathers did not want church interference; they weren't worried about state interference with the church. Along those lines, I think it's about time that churches start getting taxed. They've completely blown the deal; they quite clearly supported candidates during this campaign, and that alone is enough to remove their tax-exempt status.

then move please, because we don't need people with such narrowminded focus "helping" our society. you obviously have very little understanding of the constitution and your posts regularly confirm that. go over to europe's amazing society, twice the people and 1/3 the productivity. fail with them while i laugh at your obvious ignorance. at least over there, you won't have to worry about religion intruding into your life... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Taks, we've already been over the whole European productivity thing. You lost that one. Their countries are not failing. The average European is just as well off as the average American, perhaps moreso, since he or she is not likely to be blown up by a pissed off Iraqi. There's narrow-mindedness on both sides; hell, guys like Sean Hannity are writing books with subtitles like "Defeating Terrorism and Liberalism" as though they were both equally dangerous. I think most of the people in this forum arguing against religion entering politics aren't scared of religion so much as we're scared that we'll find our own personal morality regulated. And you can certainly have morality without religion. I find it to be a more gratifying system myself, since I'm not basing my decisions on what someone said two thousand years ago, but that's up to you to decide. Society is better with less rules governing morality than more, because the bottom line is, in fifty years what social conservatives abhor now will be commonplace. It's just slowing down evolution. The country was founded to provide freedom for all people; freedom for Christians to worship, think, and vote as they like, but also for non-Christians. Couple that with the fact that the Christian church (as a whole) has been on the wrong side of numerous scientific and social issues over the past two thousand years, and I say we ought to be more secular than not.

I know a lot of southerners that helped build the city of Chicago Wiser their called tradesman. I should have taken it for what it was after all most of Chicago believes the south starts after you cross I-80. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My argument is pretty concise. I've repeated it several times - Taks was right in calling me on misspeaking at first. That was my mistake, and I didn't intend to say that everyone with a college education is a liberal. However, the point still stands. What I said about grammar was mostly in jest, but I'll tell you the truth; when I'm arguing with someone like deganawida I tend to take him more seriously because he makes use of little things like capitalization and punctuation. Sorry, but I associate haphazard typing with fourteen year-olds whose opinion I tend to disregard, rightly or wrongly. Just a thing of mine. Furthermore, it's pretty dangerous to classify me as a lefty. I voted for Bush in 2000, and - here's a kicker - I not only worked for John McCain's campaign during the 2000 Republican primaries, but I was even one of his campaign's television spokesmen for my little neck of the woods. This was mostly by virtue of being one of the few guys willing to blow off class and get up at five in the morning to go do interviews, but nevertheless, I wouldn't consider myself a bought and sold Democrat. Socially, I'm very, very liberal. I too own a firearm, but more for the simple pleasure of taking it to the range now and again and firing off a few rounds. I honestly wouldn't be that mad if the government took it away from me. I do not thinks gays should be allowed to marry at this point in time, but it wouldn't kill me if they were. I am strongly, strongly in favor of civil unions. I think we ought to do as much stem cell research as we can. I support a woman's right to choose, though I do not support late term or partial birth abortions. I am a strong supporter of the United States military due to firsthand experience with it, and I think the current Iraqi war was one of the worst blunders ever committed by a US president. I do not think a war on terrorism can be won. I do not think George Bush is evil, but I believe he is misguided and arrogant. I do not believe religion is evil, but I believe it has no place in the governing of a country. I think that with all that Christianity has been wrong about over the past two thousand years, it no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt and people ought to trust science and reason over pure faith. I believe it is the height of human arrogance to think we could possibly be sure of God's motives or intentions or wants or dislikes, if a God does exist. I live in a Southern state and believe NASCAR stands for Non-Athletic Sport Centered Around Rednecks. I hate Michael Moore. I think people who boycott an actor's movies because of his or her political views are idiots. Fiscally, I'm generally conservative, and I'd say I have a conservative view of foreign policy, but Bush has changed my ideas about what exactly that means.

actually, your original quote was this... so tell me, when you make your generalizations, do you always add the phrase tends afterwards? i directly countered the 2nd quote and you had a problem with it, so now you change your statement. you did NOT say "tends to have a liberalizing effect" orignially... so what gives? first it was applied to everybody as a "fact" and now it "tends" to have an effect. i strictly pointed out that your statement does not apply to everyone. so this time... Q.E.D. thanks. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know what? You're right. I did leave out the "tends" in the initial post, though I had meant to put it in. You've got me on that one, and if that's what we're arguing about, mea culpa.