Anyone need a wedding ring?

[~Di]

Some of you WANT civil war? Are you mad? I doubt anyone dispises Bush more than I, but good God... to think that I'd be willing to murder my friends, my neighbors, destroy my country because I'm not happy with the outcome of an election? How self-indulgent and narcissistic would THAT be?

 

Life isn't a computer game. There isn't any reload key when you see your brother disemboweled by a mortar hit before your very eyes, or when you pick up pieces of your child after your home was cluster bombed by the "loyal opposition."

 

*disgust*

 

I'm with Eldar. Talk of civil war is utter madness. And it's also irksome in the extreme.

[Volourn]

YES! Di, and agree on something! That is always good.

[TentamusDarkblade]

that might actually be one of the signs of the apocalypse....

 

 

seriously though, civil war won't happen and wishing that it does it both idiotic and short-sighted.

 

If people feel that strongly about what's going on in modern US politics, then why don't you get involved in any number of progressive reform movements or political groups? Actually work towards change instead of just bitching about it...

 

Black Box Voting

Democratic underground

Our Vote

Fair Vote

National Voting Rights Institute

The Center for Public Integrity

Common Cause

Open Debates

Reclaim Democracy

FAIR

People for the American Way

 

I'm not advocating for any of these sites, only listing them as possible places to start if you want to actually take rational action instead of just standing around being whiners....oh hell, i think i just used a Volourn line

[~Di]

YES! Di, and agree on something! That is always good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We agree on a lot of things, and I'm genuinely fond of you. You are one of the few 'net folks who have the capacity to actually hurt my feelings. Which is my misfortune, I suppose.

 

But this civil war silliness does indeed irk me to my toenails. I'm not the least bit surprised it irks you as well.

[AlanC9]

this guy consistently cites as evidence "well established facts" that are neither "well established" nor necessarily factual.

 

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

[Cantousent]

"Edit: I want to clarify that I was being facetious before: I do not support secession. At this time, anyway"

 

I knew that, you goof! Since we're making admissions, I rather enjoy a lively debate. I just prefer it to be friendly. Can we have a friendly, lively debate?

[Dakoth]

Huh? Talk about twisting the topic until it screams. Your question has nothing to do with what I said. Being forced to recite that they acknowledge that their nation, the country they live in and they love, ascribes itself to serving a God that they do not believe in is so obviously a violation of the separation of church and state that you can't even dispute it. All you can do is pull out the lame, "well being forced to say 'Under God' doesn't actually force you to believe, does it?" I mean, get a grip. Not saying 'Under God' doesn't force believers to become atheists either.

 

The point... obviously... was that the secular nation forged by our forefathers was hijacked in the 1950's by a bunch of Christian fundamentalists who inserted God references into the everyday lives of all Americans, including those who did not believe in God... and forced them to recite it daily or be ostracized as a consequenced. This is NOT freedom of religion; it's enforced religion. (Religion does not equate to belief; if you force me into a church weekly, and tie me down to a pew, you are forcing your religion on me even if you haven't drilled a hole in my skull and shoved a copy of King James Bible into my quivering raw brain.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Actually, that fundamentalist Christian judge with the Ten Commandments flapping from his shoulders may very well NOT treat me the same way as a secular judge would... and there are literally thousands of cases to prove it. But your argument to this is that it's okay for government to heap religious icons into its public buildings because the people in charge of those public buildings will probably ignore them and treat the atheist (or the Buddist or the Muslim) the same as they treat fellow Christians.

 

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.

 

The gaping hole in that theory is that our constitution expressly forbids the co-mingling of church and state. The fact that Christians have been patiently rewriting that and reinterpreting it to set themselves up as a state religion does not change the fact that the original intent has been thoroughly bastardized.

 

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.

 

You keep twisting topics without responding to what you must know is the basis of the discussion. *sigh* First, a teacher has a right to ask for a moment of silence to remember a student that died... why you suddenly pulled that example out of your pocket I don't know, for crying out loud. However, schools do NOT have the right to blast Christian prayers from the loudspeaker any more than they have the right to blast selected passages from Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto from the loudspeaker. Schools are there to teach from approved texts so that children can move into higher education with a modicum of basic knowledge. Schools are not there to flood young minds with religious references so that those children whose families do not ascribe to said beliefs are either ostracized, made to feel inferior ('you're going to hell.... muwahahahaha!") or just plain irritated daily with propagandizing indoctrination of any kind.

 

What is so difficult to understand?

 

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.

 

Well, you're nothing if not consistent. You've used the same argument for absolutely everything... "you're not forced to believe just because the government officially calls upon God at every turn."

 

And you're not forced NOT to believe if the government doesn't call on God at every turn.

 

This is my country too. It is also the country of atheists, Jews, Buddists and Muslims. We have a right to NOT have Christian dogma plastered on our currency, telling us and the world that OUR NATION, the nation we love and that was founded based on secular separation of church and state, is now a Christian nation UNDER GOD, no less. That our beloved nation TRUSTS in a God that we do not believe in. That our disbelief in the God OUR NATION TRUSTS makes us different... unsavory... hell bound... and basically not as worthly as our Christian brethren who DO trust in that there God. Why can you not get this?

 

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

That our disbelief in the God OUR NATION TRUSTS makes us different... unsavory... hell bound... and basically not as worthly as our Christian brethren

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?

 

Are you kidding me? You ARE kidding, right? 'Cause this makes absolutely no senses otherwise. Are you trying to say that churches shouldn't be taxed because there isn't a special church congress in the government (each church sends a church senator or something)? Are you trying to say that corporations, which are taxed out the ying-yang, DO have government representation that churches don't have? Care to point it out, if so? (Don't say the lobby process, because you and I both know that religions have more government lobbies than Kelloggs has corn flakes... )

 

Tax exempt entities like the scouts and certain charities do have to meet specific criteria to maintain tax exempt status... and for the church remaining apolitical is one of those criteria. To equate the politicized pulpit rallies ("God wants you to vote for Bush, and if you don't you'll go to hell") with the Boston Tea Party is... frankly ludicrous.

 

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.

 

Oh, stop. Without "man" the church is just an empty building. Without "man" government is just a theory. Of course we are talking about people, people who are representing ideologies and religions. What you're basically saying that it's okay for the church to lie, to cheat, to break laws and rules, 'cause after all it's just "people" who are doing these things, right? With God's approval, of course, 'cause the people who are doing it are the only ones who God likes enough to let into heaven! And besides, everyone else does it, so that makes it okay for God-folks to do it too!

 

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.

 

Do you actually realize what you are saying here?

 

No but I have read the words you tried to put in my mouth.

 

It all boils down to, "It's okay for us to take over the government and the nation with our religion, force it into your everyday lives, 'cause even though we force you to read our religious mottos and recite our religious dogma, we don't actually force you to believe what you're reading and reciting."

 

Think about this. I know I do. And it's chilling.

 

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?

[Dakoth]

this guy consistently cites as evidence "well established facts" that are neither "well established" nor necessarily factual.

 

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:

[Darque]

Talk of civil war is utter madness.  And it's also irksome in the extreme.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

anyone who would actually want it is sick in the head in my opinion.

[Vincent_Valashar]

Only way things will change is through violence. Deep down, only thing a human being understands is violence.

[AlanC9]

Sounds like someone's watched Starship Troopers a few times too many.

[TentamusDarkblade]

Only way things will change is through violence.  Deep down, only thing a human being understands is violence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yep...Ghandi sure accomplished alot with his mad Kung Fu skills....

 

I bet Rosa Parks kicked the ever lovin' **** outta someone to get the seat on that bus....

 

Harriet Tubman pulled Chuck norris "Delta force" type commando raids to to get slaves north along the underground railroad....

 

These folks managed to affect change without violence, you dope. Violence changes nothing, standing up against violence does.

[Volourn]

"Only way things will change is through violence. Deep down, only thing a human being understands is violence."

 

This is bull. My life changes all the time without *any* violence. Get a job, lose a job, etc.,e tc. No violence what0so-ever. Violence is not always needed.

 

In fact, the two different ways that the US and Kanada came to be are what makes both of our great countries different.

 

R00fles!

[Commissar]

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.

 

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.

 

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, 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

One last thing and that is religion in the Military right or wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Commissar]

R00fles!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please stop. Please.

[Judge Hades]

R00fles!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please stop. Please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Its not going to happen. R00FLES! (w00t)

[Commissar]

Its not going to happen.  R00FLES!  (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Weiser_Cain]

Talk of civil war is utter madness.  And it's also irksome in the extreme.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

anyone who would actually want it is sick in the head in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder if it is inevitable. If the split is real and widening logic dictates that it will happen.

[Cantousent]

You're better off reading Starship Troopers. The movie is a bit weak. Still, it's a great action film, I guess.

[Volourn]

"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."

 

There is an ignore button. use it.

 

R00fles!

[Phosphor]

Looks like this one is ready to be put out of it's misery.