"Seperation of Church and State" is a crock. (2932 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.73 on 154 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by BDakotaC (View user info) at 2004-12-08 01:00:55 EST
The Constitution of the United States does not call for "seperation of church and state." When people say that, they are demonstrating their ignorance. That phrase or sentiment appears nowhere in the Constitution. The Consitution prohibits establishment of a state religion. It does not say that our government should be devoid of all references to and vestiges of religion.
People who say they are "offended" by religious symbols in the public sphere are ignorant at best and evil at worst. All of the major religions are based on peace and human dignity. How can anyone be offended by those things?
Our country was founded on aknowledgement of a higher power from whom/which people derived their rights. We are now suffering the consequences of banning God from our public life.
User Reviews
Submitted by Flying_buttmonkey (user info) at 2004-12-13 08:20:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I can see both sides of this story but can't say I agree with either. It's an argument no one will ever win.
I live in the UK and although we don't have this sepperation of Church and State argument we're having similar problems. We have immigrants pouring into the country and bitching that we celebrate Christmas. Where I understand the idea of freedom is that you have the choice to practise what religion you wish without the threat of oppression, Britain has an established Christian church and people should recognise that when they come here. I can't say I appreciate my possible future children learning about every damn religion under the sun apart than their own. I'd like them to be able to make their own choice of religion, but I can forsee in the future Christianity is going to become a taboo subject. Although I myself am not a practising Christian, I can't see the logic behind this feeling of shame England seems to have for its own religion.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2004-12-13 08:09:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Would a state religion be pantheistic?
Submitted by lovetohate (user info) at 2004-12-12 17:43:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
When the constitution says "with no respect to religion" they mean that rules made by the church (adultery, honor thy father and mother) cannot be enforced on society.
The constitution is vague in terms of religion. Unless you are them, you don't know what "they" mean. The interpretation of the constitution is up to the individual, whether loose or strict, however, only the indiciduals placed in power can enforce/whatever their interpretation and beliefs. Blah Blah Blah.
Submitted by jayjonze (user info) at 2004-12-12 10:13:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
By your logic, wouldn't outlawing prayer in school be in conflict with that? What about tax laws that leave churches exempt?
If congress couldn't make laws that have any involvement with religion, there wouldn't be a problem.
Decontructed, without all the name-calling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rad, you are on the right track but you are a little off...
1. When the constitution says "with no respect to religion" they mean that rules made by the church (adultery, honor thy father and mother) cannot be enforced on society. Saying that there can be no prayer in public school is taking it a little far. If kids were forced to pray regardless of their beliefs, then they would be protected by the constitution.
2. The reason churches are tax-exempt is because they are "non-profit", just like the red cross, hospitals and your mother(just kidding, but I had to put that in there, it sounded too good)...........
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-12 09:43:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jayjonze (user info) at 2004-12-11 09:05:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
You are an idiot. Watch I'll show you.
The constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
This means that congress will make no laws that have any involvement with any religion.
Thus Separation of Church and State
Fucking Idiot..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By your logic, wouldn't outlawing prayer in school be in conflict with that? What about tax laws that leave churches exempt?
If congress couldn't make laws that have any involvement with religion, there wouldn't be a problem.
Decontructed, without all the name-calling.
Submitted by jayjonze (user info) at 2004-12-12 09:10:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Note how liberals consistently name-call or attack the posting in every way except deconstructing the actual idea expressed in the posting. That is essentially because they put no real contemplation into their position and are, thus, unable to defend it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by jayjonze (user info) at 2004-12-11 09:05:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
You are an idiot. Watch I'll show you.
The constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
This means that congress will make no laws that have any involvement with any religion.
Thus Separation of Church and State
Fucking Idiot..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did deconstruct your idea, note how conservatives fail to acknowledge their mistakes.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2004-12-11 23:30:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
lol, this right here...
"Our country was founded on aknowledgement of a higher power from whom/which people derived their rights. We are now suffering the consequences of banning God from our public life."
...is why I don't take it seriously. That argument is that we NEED a big omnipotent man to shove moral guidance up our asses. Furthermore, our country was founded by religious nuts. Those same guys made following the sabbath mandatory. Secularization is growing up and realizing God has his place, is not in work, school, or rehab where instead of offering plausible therapy you instead have to pray to jesus to give up the h train....although I wouldn't oppose anyone who wanted to.
Why is it offensive? Well, I guess the big reason is because rational human beings want rational explantions. If i ask you where we came from, and you say two hippies in a garden, i've pretty much lost all trust in anything you have to say from that moment onward. You can't argue religion. there's no point. Every "Why?" will get a "well, because..." and eventually, you just give up and start accepting every religiously motiviated decision as gospel...even if they are god damned stinky smelly turds.
why else? Taking the conservative angle, you could say, "I don't want your views taught to my kids." Christians don't want Bobby and Sally to read "I have two mommies" well, I don't want my kid mindlessly reading the fucking bible...coming home telling me i am a sinner, or possibly becoming a bible thumping asshole.
think about it..."hey joey, what did you learn in school today?"
"oh we got some secret information"
"oh, what's that?"
"Teacher clued us in. It turns out dinosaurs aren't real...the bones are just there to test our faith"
It's then when I flip out and go on my "last cruscade," taking out teachers and politicians and my neighbor who told me Jesus loves.
Submitted by bdakotac (user info) at 2004-12-11 22:26:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I admitted to the misspellings. My misspelling of "Constitution" was obviously a typo, since I correctly spelled it in all of the other instances. So, I misspelled two words. Is that the only way you have of attempting to refute my argument?
Everyone using ubersite: Note how liberals consistently name-call or attack the posting in every way except deconstructing the actual idea expressed in the posting. That is essentially because they put no real contemplation into their position and are, thus, unable to defend it.
Submitted by HatMan (user info) at 2004-12-11 22:11:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I could go on and on, but do I really have to?
Submitted by HatMan (user info) at 2004-12-11 22:10:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
acknowledgement
Submitted by HatMan (user info) at 2004-12-11 22:10:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Constitution
Submitted by HatMan (user info) at 2004-12-11 22:08:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Separation
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2004-12-11 17:03:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
duck, pat buchanan
Submitted by TheMidnight12AM (user info) at 2004-12-11 16:42:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Amendment 28: Anything that offends anyone, unless the offended is a Christian, is thereafter illegal.
Fucking multiculturalistic shit.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-12-11 15:04:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You sound like the Christian version of a Taliban.
Submitted by jayjonze (user info) at 2004-12-11 09:05:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You are an idiot. Watch I'll show you.
The constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
This means that congress will make no laws that have any involvement with any religion.
Thus Separation of Church and State
Fucking Idiot..
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-11 06:48:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The asinine "separation" angers a lot of constitutionalists. What about them?
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2004-12-11 04:49:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i don't like people to be angry. i missed the 70's and religious war isn't going to bring fuckfests...albeit with rubbers...back into the mainstream.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-11 04:38:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You cannot litigate what pisses people off or not. If someone gets pissed, its their problem.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2004-12-11 03:53:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
that's the right idea but i don't think it's feasible. religion pisses people off. it would start fights. people would get angry; religious civil war could ensue.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-11 03:24:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
dig this, my point of view is that anybody should be able to say anything about religion anywhere, as long as there is no litigation by the Government establishing a national religion. A monument to the ten commandments? In. Prayer in school (not mandatory, voluntarily)? In. Kosher menu at the state building? In. A freaking crescent at the state fair? In. A national religion? Out.
Thats about it.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2004-12-11 03:01:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
and your story sounds like affirmative action of the celestial spirit. very interesting. got a link to the debate on it?
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2004-12-11 02:57:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
and i went to methodist college where i stuck a hand drawn menorah on a christmas tree. i agree that there is some hippocracy when a star of david is displayed in favor of a good old-fashioned cross, but the same can be said when, despite being a private school, you ignore a number of the student body with your religious expression. that's why a number of so-called liberal fanatics try to get rid of everything. it's easier than trying to be all inclusive.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-11 02:20:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Bullshit pen_name.
Last year in New York City, schools and public buildings were allowed to display menorahs and star and crescents, but were not allowed to display a cross, or a nativity scene. Yes, there was outrage at the double standard. The same people who allowed the display are the same people who are for the complete and total secularization of government.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2004-12-11 02:13:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i think it's all about seperation of christian faith and state. if some jewish references slipped into our pledge our our money said "in allah, and mohammed as his profit, we trust", there would be a greater "christian" segment of our society that would oppose church and state.
lot's of christians are only defending their stance as the majority. persnally i don't care either way.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-11 01:55:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Unless of course you want to blame WWII on the Jews?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-11 01:54:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Uh, Hitler?
Submitted by lizzard (user info) at 2004-12-10 23:45:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I'm offended by religion in my (should be) secular state has religion inscribed into it. Why? Because your beliefs are not my beliefs, and should not be forced on me. Not because I don't like peace.
Oh, and as for "all major religions being based on peace and human dignity" I say this:
Spanish Inquisition
Witch burnings
Irish internal conflict
Jewish Holocaust of WW2
Queen Mary of Scotland killing the Protestants
Palestinian/Israeli conflict
You want more? Look in your history book. RELIGION causes more strife than it stops.
Preaching is all well and good, but i have YET to see a bloody atheist cause a major war.
Submitted by jdanm (user info) at 2004-12-10 23:25:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
While we're on misinterpreted sections of the constitution, how bout this one:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Submitted by Brianthetruthspeaker (user info) at 2004-12-10 08:21:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Your right...alter or not
People at "Uber"
Are not interested in the truth (if it makes them feel bad)
A great many of them are or have been taught by ultra liberal teachers that on a day bases
Teach the children "no matter how little there views"
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-10 07:19:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, I concede that abortion can be potentially considered murder and thus should be legislated against. My earlier mistake was to argue this as a package, which it is not since some activities can harm and some don't, as shown by MyNameIsTim.
My beef is with religion being used to say that a harmless activity is wrong, as with gay marriage. I think that it's easily enough to agree that the ONLY reason homosexuality is seen is "wrong" is due to some oft-quoted passage in the bible. There are no logical, practical or secular arguments against homosexuality. It will thus be very unfair to non-Christian gays that they should be penalised because some passage in some book they don't believe in says so. In fact, legislation against homosexuality HARMS the gays, as it adds to the stigma and discrimination they already have to deal with. If we're talking about legislation against activities that harm others, as with abortion, then legislation should be helping the gays, instead of harming them for not doing any wrong (except in the bible).
To sum up: Official discrimination against gays is religious oppression as homosexuality is only "immoral" and "wrong" according to Christians, no one else cares if John is banging John in the ass.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-10 04:52:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Quasiplasmohedron,
Perfectly valid argument. I'll buy it for a dollar. The only problem with it is it will make people have to be responsible for their actions, thus your argument will never be accepted by those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Their ideal goal is not a woman's right to choose to abort a baby, but to be able to justify any wrong so its "not their fault" or "not their problem anymore".
Submitted by Quasiplasmohedron (user info) at 2004-12-10 04:31:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
In other words, the statement that my argument can be summed up as
. "A fetus in any stage of development is a human and thus abortion is murder,"
is incorrect. I would sum it up more correctly as
. "A fetus in any stage of development may be human and thus abortion could be murder."
Submitted by Quasiplasmohedron (user info) at 2004-12-10 04:20:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 13:08:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
If you set the starting point of life as MyNameIsTim and Quasiplasmohedron did, the fusion of egg and sperm, then biologically all abortion is murder. Some of course set it much later. I for one don't feel it's my right to decide when a human is formed. I'm not biologist.
=====================================
I don't think I made myself clear. I don't feel that it's my right to decide when a human is formed, nor do I feel that any biologist has that right. It's not a question of science to me, it's a question of ethics and it depends on what you think it means to be human.
I'm not religious, but I make the assumption that there is some "correct" definition of right and wrong that most people can agree on, and that it includes the concept that killing other people is generally wrong. Given that, it seems to me that if it's unclear whether the thing being killed is human, then, to be safe, you ought not to kill it.
To reiterate: nobody, including scientists, knows or ever could know exactly when a human is formed. Therefore, to abort a fetus is POTENTIALLY murder, and so we should avoid doing it.
To the argument that we could define human life as beginning before conception I respond that this is obviously not a useful definition since almost all eggs and almost all sperm are "aborted." Even if the possibility exists, there's not much we can do about it, and it doesn't support the argument that a human is only formed at some arbitrary time after conception.
To look at abortion from another angle, a fetus is biologically speaking a human being, and if we allow killing it based on its physical development, why shouldn't we allow killing human beings that have been born based on similar criteria?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-10 02:58:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for this reason:
You have expressed a that a piece of legal misinformation exists, and it makes people angry. These people are angry because they feel you must be some sort of fundamentalist christian nutjob hellbent on converting them, when in fact you are a normal dude who tries to live his life by a set moral code.
This moral code just happens to be the same moral code this nation was founded upon. The problem we run into is that the moral code is based in a religion. The founding document of this nation based on a particular religion is lawfully obligated to hold free all religions. The way I interpret this is that all religions are free to be practiced, and that this nation will not establish a state religion.
Discussing religion in government and school, worshipping God in public places, the syntax of the pledge of allegiance; none of these activities is a state endorsed religion. Examples of nations that have state established religions are: England, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc...
There is no slippery slope in this case. In order to have a state established religion, litigation has to be passed stating this, "<insert religion> is now the offical religion of the USA." Disallowing the mention of religion in government and school is contradictory to what the intent of the first amendment is. It is modern religious persecution.
Submitted by RouteTwo (user info) at 2004-12-10 02:38:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by bdakotac (user info) at 2004-12-10 00:10:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
What is an "alter?"
Submitted by bdakotac (user info) at 2004-12-10 00:10:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What is an "alter?"
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-12-09 23:26:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I won't even bother to respond. You're wrong and you're likely an alter to boot.
Just fuck off and die. Please. I fucking hope this is a joke.
Submitted by bdakotac (user info) at 2004-12-09 22:50:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I misspelled "separation." That somewhat damages the credibility of my argument on this board, but I stand by my posting. I should have run my posting through the spell-checker. Because of the misspelling, I will only give myself a plus one, instead of a plus two.
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-09 20:34:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Noticed quite a few of you quoting me, so you might prefer the summary here (+Additional comments): http://www.ubersite.com/m/53734
Submitted by somnambulist (user info) at 2004-12-09 17:59:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
(rated it wrong, my bad - see previous post)
Submitted by somnambulist (user info) at 2004-12-09 17:58:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"We are now suffering the consequences of banning God from our public life."
Yea, because some people in a specific country have an adverse belief to commonly held religious views, God decides to punish all of America (because, as we know, God didn't give us the ability to think and act freely so that we could actually DO it...).
-2 for not blaming your dumb-ass self, and throwing the burden of blame to a higher power.
Submitted by jdanm (user info) at 2004-12-09 17:21:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"And this is a Catholic problem why? I think you are blame-shifting. The impetus of responsibility of non-believing Africans falls on the individual African. The impetus of responsibility of a Catholic African falls again on the individual. You cannot blame an organizational moral code to be to the detriment of an individual if the individual deliberately misinterprets the code to which he is expected to abide.
The major flaw in the liberal argument is this: Individuals are not held accountable for their actions. The actions are blamed on various things; society, the media, police oppression, religious oppression, etc."
================================================================
You can blame an organizational moral code if it becomes the legal system, which is what separation of church and state prevents. If you allow religions a role in legislating then it becomes everyone's problem-- believers and non believers, because it makes certain individual choices illegal. Your argument for "individual responsibility" rests on the premise that individuals can choose options that the church says are wrong, but if you allow the church to influence the law that choice disappears.
In the actual case of Africa, if the influence of a moral code prevents legitimate policy from coming into effect, ie: preventing education campaigns on safe sex, then it is part of the problem. Unfortunately this particular influence can't be removed, but hopefully it can at least be kept isolated from the government.
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2004-12-09 15:45:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Here ya go:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/39866
Submitted by BoogieFevuh (user info) at 2004-12-09 15:37:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by ToxicNarcotic (user info) at 2004-12-09 14:19:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
the only heaven you're all going to is your own ignorance
-----------
You're so deep...I think you just converted me.
No, seriously!
Submitted by tuesdaydelay (user info) at 2004-12-09 14:55:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/53899
Church?
Submitted by ToxicNarcotic (user info) at 2004-12-09 14:19:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
the only heaven you're all going to is your own ignorance
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2004-12-09 13:27:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 02:01:23 (#)
Ranking: -2
If the Saudi government goes over and establishes an Islamic state and forces their beliefs on you(like the way you people are doing to others), will you bitch? Of course, because christians are hypocrites.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2004-12-09 13:20:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BoogieFevuh (user info) at 2004-12-08 20:19:50 (#)
Ranking: -2
I hate self righteous assholes like you. Religion is about loving thy neighbor, not about "loving thy neighbor unless they disagree with my asinie assumptions about church and state, otherwise they are evil."
Seriously...calling somebody evil, because they don't agree with your religion? Yes I believe in God and Jesus and all that jazz, but I'm not part of your religion. Your religion is evil, and the ignorance and prejudice I see in you is proof.
Submitted by Koala_sausage (user info) at 2004-12-09 11:16:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i dont know why anyone gets so hung up on abortion..... id even go so far to say the death penalty but i can understand why people are opposed to it.... to be frank, there are too many people on this earth as it is and losing a few here and there is only going to help the situation.
if i got pregnant now (not that i would be stupid enough to be unsafe.. but shit happens sometimes) i would not hesitate - id be straight to the family planning clinic popping as many pills as i can... WHY? because i know that at this time i am not fit enough to bring up a child... financially or mentally - and that child, if i was forced to have it, would end up having a pretty average life with a pretty unprepared and crap single mother and i, and the child would most probably end up as common white riff raff - the kind that are all too common in this day and age.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-09 01:51:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jdanm (user info) at 2004-12-08 22:47:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Secondly, How many of the Africans contracting HIV are Catholic? And how is the Vatican oppressing the ones who aren't?"
I'd say an awful lot. The Catholic religion has a strong presence in every African country that was colonized by either the French or the Belgians- that covers a pretty big chunk of Africa. And regardless of whether they're Catholic, the church impacts their communities and often dictates how these issues are dealt with.
"Thirdly, the argument is that only married people should have sex, and then should not use birth control. This doesn't cover unmarried non-Catholic Africans. "
This is the main problem with religions dictating policy. It imagines a utopia where everyone obeys the rules and builds policy based on these assumptions. There will never be a world where people don't have pre marital sex.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this is a Catholic problem why? I think you are blame-shifting. The impetus of responsibility of non-believing Africans falls on the individual African. The impetus of responsibility of a Catholic African falls again on the individual. You cannot blame an organizational moral code to be to the detriment of an individual if the individual deliberately misinterprets the code to which he is expected to abide.
The major flaw in the liberal argument is this: Individuals are not held accountable for their actions. The actions are blamed on various things; society, the media, police oppression, religious oppression, etc.
Submitted by Evil_Morg (user info) at 2004-12-08 23:35:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you know, i may come across as a dick, be deap down inside i'm realy a bigger dick.
this day couldn't get any better.
=P
Submitted by TonyMontana (user info) at 2004-12-08 23:16:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"sepAration"
jesus christ, get a fucking clue you imbeciles.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 23:01:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you don't kill Bishops- Bishop kills you... http://www.ubersite.com/m/53758
Submitted by StonedSilly (user info) at 2004-12-08 23:01:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Why don't you fucking rot in hell, you dirty jew bitch?
Seperation of church and state is a good thing. It's not like the fucking queer ass churches aren't already regulated enough by the government. I think religion should be banned altogether and anyone who follows it who can't provide a legitimate reason for following it should be lined up and fucking shot.
Submitted by kai070169 (user info) at 2004-12-08 22:51:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think if we kill all the bishops, we'll be fine.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 22:49:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 20:59:30 (#)
Ranking: 2
Why is it you when one puts foward an argument that a liberal cannot refute, they begin all the name-calling? Oh why?
======================================
i don't know. i haven't seen an argument like that on this thread.
Submitted by jdanm (user info) at 2004-12-08 22:47:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Secondly, How many of the Africans contracting HIV are Catholic? And how is the Vatican oppressing the ones who aren't?"
I'd say an awful lot. The Catholic religion has a strong presence in every African country that was colonized by either the French or the Belgians- that covers a pretty big chunk of Africa. And regardless of whether they're Catholic, the church impacts their communities and often dictates how these issues are dealt with.
"Thirdly, the argument is that only married people should have sex, and then should not use birth control. This doesn't cover unmarried non-Catholic Africans. "
This is the main problem with religions dictating policy. It imagines a utopia where everyone obeys the rules and builds policy based on these assumptions. There will never be a world where people don't have pre marital sex.
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 22:38:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 20:59:30 (#)
Ranking: 2
Why is it you when one puts foward an argument that a liberal cannot refute, they begin all the name-calling? Oh why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Unfortunately, you can't refute that forcing religious beliefs on non-believers through the force of law, or letting religious inclinations influence legislature, is oppression as well, which is against freedom. It's true that there are a lot of countries more oppressive than USA, but that doesn't make oppression in the US right. The whole "no seperation of church and state" thing may also be true, but ability to do something does not equate to a justification for it.
Let's just take gay marriage, since it has been shown by other comments that stuff like abortion and death penalty can have secular arguments as well. Gay marriage harms no one, at all. There is absolutely no reason for discrimination against gays except if someone starts quoting bible.
Once a leader makes decisions based SOLELY on his, or some people's, religious beliefs, it is religious oppression. Nothing less.
No name-calling, no label throwing.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 22:30:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jdanm (user info) at 2004-12-08 22:22:53 (#)
Ranking: -2
"All of the major religions are based on peace and human dignity."
I would beg to differ on this, mainly based on the history of the Catholic Church. Perhaps it was founded on these principles, but what religions practice and what they preach are often very different. The Vatican is still a major reason why thousands more Africans contract HIV every day. But condoms are against the Bible, I forgot.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Firstly, this is a post on mainly on law, not religion.
Secondly, How many of the Africans contracting HIV are Catholic? And how is the Vatican oppressing the ones who aren't?
Thirdly, the argument is that only married people should have sex, and then should not use birth control. This doesn't cover unmarried non-Catholic Africans.
So, how exactly do you differ on this again?
Submitted by jdanm (user info) at 2004-12-08 22:22:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"All of the major religions are based on peace and human dignity."
I would beg to differ on this, mainly based on the history of the Catholic Church. Perhaps it was founded on these principles, but what religions practice and what they preach are often very different. The Vatican is still a major reason why thousands more Africans contract HIV every day. But condoms are against the Bible, I forgot.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2004-12-08 22:03:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Evil_Morg:
i was not conceding to all of your arguments, i said this: "You are right, the government should not cater to my reigion."
as far as all of your arguments, considering that was the only argument you made, then yes, i am conceding to all of your arguments.
bottom line: you're a dick. fuck you.
have a nice day.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 20:59:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Why is it you when one puts foward an argument that a liberal cannot refute, they begin all the name-calling? Oh why?
Submitted by BoogieFevuh (user info) at 2004-12-08 20:19:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I hate self righteous assholes like you. Religion is about loving thy neighbor, not about "loving thy neighbor unless they disagree with my asinie assumptions about church and state, otherwise they are evil."
Seriously...calling somebody evil, because they don't agree with your religion? Yes I believe in God and Jesus and all that jazz, but I'm not part of your religion. Your religion is evil, and the ignorance and prejudice I see in you is proof.
Submitted by Jo_of_the_golden_P (user info) at 2004-12-08 19:47:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
-1 for misspelling separation
-1 for pissing me off
Submitted by Evil_Morg (user info) at 2004-12-08 19:27:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
MyNameIsTim:
So your concede to all my agreements, point out that your spelling and grammar is inferior to mine but you can still assure me that you're substantially smarter then me. Fine, enjoy the title.
By the way, I couldn't give a rat's ass about your grammar or spelling. It was simply the fact that you could not form a single logical argument against what I said. For that reason alone you were mocked. In truth MyNameIsTim I would fight and die for your right to hold your believes but what you don't understand is I'm fighting people like you.
You can change foreign policy. You choose to do nothing.
Why did I choose my name? I am Buddhist, I believe in the duality of man, the yin vs. yang. Evil_Morg is my online persona, he's is quit different from the person in the real world. I picked this name because it represents my duality.
Oh, and the reason I'm so in your fucking face (not just MyNameIsTim) is because I am EVIL_MORG! Being right never felt so good.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2004-12-08 18:45:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Suck a dick, god boy.
Submitted by Captain_Foamy (user info) at 2004-12-08 18:44:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Bush needs to separate his dick from little dead asian bums! He puts his dink in the little dead chinks! Oh did that just rhyme? I am God!
He needs to stop incorporating his religious beliefs into his legislation as well.
http://www.geocities.com/captain_foamy
just like this post
some of the site is super smart and some of the site is super stupid, it's like the sweet and sour sauce Bush smears on little dead asian butt, BEFORE HE FUCKS IT!
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2004-12-08 18:20:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/53809
I think this person is the second coming of Nietzsche.
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2004-12-08 16:16:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/53715
also see, "Hitwhoring 101"
+2 because i agree with some of the principles... (i'm a libertarian)
Submitted by Seralena (user info) at 2004-12-08 15:58:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
By taking the 10 commandments out of schools you could say, "They are legislating atheism!"
=====
Umm, no. You are removing any symbols of a particular religion. You are NOT, however, commenting on the existence or lack thereof of any particular deity.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-12-08 15:57:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
sep-A-ration
not seperation.
sorry, pet peeve.
Submitted by Grim_Hippie (user info) at 2004-12-08 15:48:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
yet all I hear is "blah blah blah dirtfuckinggays blah blah blah"
-2 DIE
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2004-12-08 14:48:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
rad
Because dead black folk are SO much cooler than dead white folk.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 14:10:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 12:17:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 11:48:04 (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree to a point. The original document didn't allow for seperation. Unfortunately, the late 20th century Supreme Court has set some pretty sad precedents, and ever since Marbury v. Madison, these 9 jokers have been able to "interpret" the constitution to pretty much whatever they want to. Seperation between church and state exists only because some old white people I didn't elect says so. This is about the only common ground I have with pro-abortion people (not liking old white people deciding stuff for me). So, if I have to endure a revisionist history of the USA, you libs pretty much have to endure us enforcing morals in a society where every wrong action has an excuse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Am I the only one who sees the irony in this? You bitch about "some old white people" a couple of decades ago making laws that you don't like, but doesn't see anything wrong in accepting a book written by some other old white people almost 2 thousand years ago as divine truth and a guide for life?
HAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA *Breathes* HAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I was bitching about unelected officals warping the law into a politically correct psudeo-utopian society where deviance is not only accepted, but expected. Furthermore, I did not inject any personal religious beliefs into my argument, thus your rebuke has no legs on which to stand.
I believe the Constitution is to the Supreme Court, as the Torah is to the Talmud. Some people complain that religious text is made irrelavant by the people who revise it, the same can be said of activist judges who revise the Constitution.
By the way, the bible was written beginning 3000 years ago to approx 400 A.D. by Semetic people in the middle east. Hardly white. And the baby Jebus was a brother.
Submitted by browneyedgirl (user info) at 2004-12-08 14:05:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You know, there's a way to intelligently aruge this subject, with out making assertions backed by no evidence and a general tone of idiocy.
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 13:48:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by hairowen (user info) at 2004-12-08 13:39:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, this whole argument really just comes down to peoples beliefs. Screw "religion" its not something these people just do, it's part of them. We are legislating beliefs not religion. They believe in not aborting babies and others believe aborting them. You accuse them of fascism and they accuse you of sinning.
By taking the 10 commandments out of schools you could say, "They are legislating atheism!" In the same way by putting them back in, we are legislating Christianity. There is no real answer to this without someones toes being stepped on. oops gotta go to class
_________________________________________________________________________________________
You just summed up the entire state of affairs, well done! Someone once said in jest that democracy means "51% of people are happy and 49% of people are not". In the worst way possible, this came true. I guess that no matter what, it ALWAYS comes down to who has the biggest stick. There will always be people who feel oppressed, there will always be people who feel that society is going to shit due to excessive freedom.
Perhaps, the only thing that's truly harmful about all our opinions is that they're so different.
Submitted by hairowen (user info) at 2004-12-08 13:39:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, this whole argument really just comes down to peoples beliefs. Screw "religion" its not something these people just do, it's part of them. We are legislating beliefs not religion. They believe in not aborting babies and others believe aborting them. You accuse them of fascism and they accuse you of sinning.
By taking the 10 commandments out of schools you could say, "They are legislating atheism!" In the same way by putting them back in, we are legislating Christianity. There is no real answer to this without someones toes being stepped on. oops gotta go to class
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 13:08:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-12-08 12:44:29 (#)
Ranking: -2
why would anyone oppose gay marriage, oppose the death penalty, oppose abortion, or oppose a host of "secular" issues if it weren't for abortion. Not only was this not well thought out, but it's a bad point.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Let me see if I can take the other side and answer it for you.
Gay marriage: You're right, this is purely based on religion. "We hate gays because the bible said so. Period."
Oppose the death penalty: This is more a human right/power issue than anything else. It is very possible to argue that the death penalty is a form of murder, without touching religion at all.
Oppose abortion: If you can agree that the death penalty is murder, then abortion is along the same lines. Killing = Murder, if that's your take on it. BUT, it is still very debatable when a "human" is formed, which is the crux of the whole issue. If you set the starting point of life as MyNameIsTim and Quasiplasmohedron did, the fusion of egg and sperm, then biologically all abortion is murder. Some of course set it much later. I for one don't feel it's my right to decide when a human is formed. I'm not biologist.
MyNameIsTim is right in the sense that we should not group all these issues together, for the very simple fact that some harm others and some don't. If an activity harms others, then "secular" law should and must take a stand on it. If all it hurts is the sensitivity of some religious people, then it should be left to the religious leaders to deal with it, never the political leaders.
That's my stand on the whole issue: By all means keep your own house in order, there's no need to throw rocks at the houses of others.
Submitted by Seralena (user info) at 2004-12-08 12:52:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The "wall of separation between church and state" isn't in the constitution. It originates from a letter Jefferson wrote to some Baptists, and was misquoted by Justice Black in a Supreme Court case, setting a precedent that claims that this idea does exist. Still, the precedent is set, and the Supreme Court is supposed to be followed. Outside of that, there is the small matter of the first amendment.
The separation of church and state, however, is not a bad thing, even for a crazy christian fundamentalist like yourself. The reason American Democracy developed as well as it did was because no religious figures held office, and hence nobody believed that someone's religious propoganda was being shoved down their throats. It strengthened both religion and government: nobody became anti-christianity because it wasn't shoved down their throats by a government. They got to choose if they wanted to follow it or not.
"We are now suffering the consequences of banning God from our public life."
This however, may be true. The reason American Democracy could be founded in the first place is because of the moral understanding provided by religion (but it means ANY religion). Without the moral boundaries set by religion, Americans would not have displayed the remarkable law-abidingness that they did at the time of the Founding, and democracy would not have been possible. We would have needed a dictatorial or monarchical government in order to control the people.
That doesn't mean, however, that God should be put in public life. It means that religion is important in private life. As soon as the government interferes in any one religion, every follower of every other religion (including atheism) will be offended by it, and begin to distrust the government, much as all non-fundamentalist Christians who voted on moral issues distrust Bush. It is not the job of the President to proscribe our morals. It is our own job, as is the task of protecting our children from imagery we don't want them exposed to.
That's all I've got for now. Oh, and credit everything but the last paragraph to "Democracy in America" by Tocqueville.
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-12-08 12:44:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
when I said if it wasn't for abortion, I meant religion. It's been a long day already.
Submitted by whataefag (user info) at 2004-12-08 12:44:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
why would anyone oppose gay marriage, oppose the death penalty, oppose abortion, or oppose a host of "secular" issues if it weren't for abortion. Not only was this not well thought out, but it's a bad point.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2004-12-08 12:34:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If someone can give some logical arguments against abortion and gay marriage, without any reference to Christianity, I'd support him. This is a challenge to Uberers.
-----
abortion: assume: murder is wrong. killing someone is murder. a human being comes into existance with the combining of a sperm and an egg, at this point it has all the essential DNA necessary to create a full human being. preventing that process once it has started the cascade is killing that human being. murder.
gay marriage: gay people should be allowed to have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple, even change their last names. thats it. i still think looking at two gay men making out is gross, but fuck it. i'm not gay. its not bothering me substantially that they're gay, and its not harming anyone.
the difference between teh two is that abortion is harming someone. i don't like the two being grouped together.
Evil_Morg -
In my not-so-eloquent response yesterday, i was basically trying to say this: fuck you, i'm sorry i was born an american, i can't change foreign policy. fuck you for bringing up the fact that you're somehow better than me because you're not an american. yeah, we all know that [insert your country here] has never done anythign wrong, and is definately the best country on earth. My religion is not above any others, except in my own eyes, where i can do whatever the fuck i choose.
You are right, the government should not cater to my reigion, if i asked it to, i shoudl fuck off. fuck you for the way you say it.
a) i can absolutly assure you that i am subtantially smarter than you, regardless of the typos in my response and the grammatical perfection of yours.
b) your name still sucks. why did you choose it?
-----
i agreed with hidden in that some previous responses were rediculous. i agreed with stabkill in his second response, talking about not separation, but instead respect.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 12:31:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
rad1101- nice try, but not even close....
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 12:17:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 11:48:04 (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree to a point. The original document didn't allow for seperation. Unfortunately, the late 20th century Supreme Court has set some pretty sad precedents, and ever since Marbury v. Madison, these 9 jokers have been able to "interpret" the constitution to pretty much whatever they want to. Seperation between church and state exists only because some old white people I didn't elect says so. This is about the only common ground I have with pro-abortion people (not liking old white people deciding stuff for me). So, if I have to endure a revisionist history of the USA, you libs pretty much have to endure us enforcing morals in a society where every wrong action has an excuse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Am I the only one who sees the irony in this? You bitch about "some old white people" a couple of decades ago making laws that you don't like, but doesn't see anything wrong in accepting a book written by some other old white people almost 2 thousand years ago as divine truth and a guide for life?
HAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA *Breathes* HAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2004-12-08 11:52:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Rad, you're a moron. I'd justify that statement, but given the evidence you've presented my conclusion should be obvious.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 11:48:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree to a point. The original document didn't allow for seperation. Unfortunately, the late 20th century Supreme Court has set some pretty sad precedents, and ever since Marbury v. Madison, these 9 jokers have been able to "interpret" the constitution to pretty much whatever they want to. Seperation between church and state exists only because some old white people I didn't elect says so. This is about the only common ground I have with pro-abortion people (not liking old white people deciding stuff for me). So, if I have to endure a revisionist history of the USA, you libs pretty much have to endure us enforcing morals in a society where every wrong action has an excuse.
Submitted by Koala_sausage (user info) at 2004-12-08 11:47:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
death jester! hahahaha! i second your post!
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 11:26:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ek867/undergod.jpg
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-12-08 11:12:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Good point AlwaysanEagle. Have you ever noticed that the people who scream the loudest for letting the market decide about issues like labor and environmental laws are the same people calling for the television networks to self censor? Well guess what, the markets have decided. That little scene during Monday Night Football didn't exactly hurt the ratings for Desperate Housewives. It would seem that the public outrage and the private actions of the moral majority are a bit in conflict.
Submitted by SkinDiver (user info) at 2004-12-08 11:10:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
sorry, i suck
Submitted by SkinDiver (user info) at 2004-12-08 11:09:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
+2 since this is my first review
that being said, you are a stupid thiocratic nazi bitch ass. Go back to sucking hitlers dick.
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2004-12-08 11:08:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm not American, so I don't care about your Constitution.
Nor am I Christian, so I son't care about your religion.
I do, however, care that you preach at me when I didn't ask you to. If I want to be lectured by ignorant people with circular arguements and little evidence, i'll go to church.
Take this -2, and consign thyself to the flames.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2004-12-08 10:52:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
First... *bitchslap*
Second...
Are you saying that since there is no exact verbage of "Seperation of Church and State" that Judeo-Christians should be allowed to post, place, name and exhort their own Judeo-Christian symbols and articles of faith in the government, because most of the people in this country are Judeo-Christian?
Do you honestly think an Islamic man in any govenment (city/county/state/federal) would be allowed to place exerpts from the Koran on his wall and not be flamed to hell and back for it?
What the current government is doing is using that argument to back-door into a Religious State.
NEXT RIGHT WING COCK KNOCKER WHO THINKS THAT WHATEVER THEY BELIEVE IS RIGHT BECAUSE RUSH LIMBAUGH SAID SO DESERVES TO HAVE HIS HEAD KICKED IN BY A BHUDDIST!
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2004-12-08 10:44:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This touches on something that really irritates the shit out of me...the babying of America. The reason it is best to say that the United States government will not throw it's weight and support behind any one religion is that it leaves people free to make their own choices regarding religion. It neither mandates nor prohibits any religion. I see it as very similar to the pushes for censorship you typically see...take Eminem for instance. Every damn album he makes, people find some problem with it...we'll look at his charming habit of gay-bashing. Rather than allowing people to decide whether or not they want to buy the CD, and rather than allowing people to form their own opinions on whether Eminem is right about gays or if he's just a massive dickhead, many people feel that it's best to just assume that everyone else is either stupid or inadequately moral, and want to ban the CD or song altogether. Thats insulting to...well, it should be insulting to everyone. I am a voting adult, and I am capable of making my own choices, I can judge what I consider to be valid or not, and what I want in my life and what I don't. And in the case of children, who are completely exploited for the sake of moral "purification", it's the PARENTS' responsibility to keep them from seeing or hearing what they don't want them to hear, and it's the PARENTS' responsibilty to RAISE THEM. There are so many cases today where adults wind up having to watch or experience insipid dreck because everyone is so afraid children's eyes and ears will shrivel up and fall off.
The only people who want to have religion included in government are those who have an agenda towards getting THEIR religion entrenched in the government. And to those people I say, bite me bitch.
Submitted by InkyFingers (user info) at 2004-12-08 10:26:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't believe in God, but I believe in the power of organized religion. And, I've been to church enough to "feel" the invigoration of worship. However, I don't think worship should be taught in our school system. Teaching a historical perspective on religion would be okay, but mandating faith does more to cloud children's judgement than set them on the "right" path. Children should be as informed about religion as they are about anything else. Then, they can make their own decisions.
Where we have failed our society, is in our lack of education on faith. Don't confuse what I am saying. I don't mean faith in God(Gods) necessarily, but faith in general: a person's ability to believe in something for which they do not necessarily have proof. To me, faith seems like a culminary capacity composed of trust, affection, and intention. But, for some reason, we do not teach children or adults about the power of faith. This is probably because faith and religion are synonymous in our culture.
Honestly, it makes me sad that so many people don't know what faith can bring to their lives.
--Atheist Joe
Submitted by Sofa_Ace (user info) at 2004-12-08 10:15:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If you put crosses in courts and schools, then I want statues of Buddha, and that hindu 6 armed lady thing, and, fuck it, put zues in there, and some pagan gods, and some Wiccan pentagrams. If you want your religion recognized in the eyes of our government, then I want every other religion to get the same treatment.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-12-08 10:04:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
AHAHAHA I get it, this is sarcastic and intended to be funny because surely no one is this stupid.
You had me going there for a second especially with that thing about people not wanting your religion shoved down their throat being "evil" and rewriting history to make it look like the founding fathers were jebus freaks was golden.
good show
Say you don't suppose all that "one nation under gawd" bullshit has anything to do with McCarthyism to you?
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-12-08 09:39:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
um, throw....lack of sleep
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-12-08 09:37:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
(Heh. I had to through another log on this fire.)
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-12-08 09:36:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
One Nation under GOD.
Submitted by Koala_sausage (user info) at 2004-12-08 09:28:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
that has to be the most idiotic, closed minded, ignorant thing i have ever read. People like this should be locked up.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-12-08 09:20:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2004-12-08 09:15:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
1.
Inquisition
Crusade
Witch Trials
Heresy
Slavery
Hate Crimes
Do these words mean anything to you? While many of the world's religions have done some incredibly awesome things, they have also been associated (or have been used to justify) some of the world's greatest atrocities.
2.
Mixing religion with government is seldom a good thing for a society in general. It tends to lead to close-mindedness. Look at the realm of science. Galileo was called a heretic for saying the world was round, and the entire realm of magic didn't flourish until the Rennaissance, when they did away with primitive Christian superstitions regarding human dissection.
3.
If Christians are allowed to display the Ten Commandments in a court house, are you going to allow the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, and any member of any other religion to build and display their symbols in a courthouse? What if a member of an animist tribe in Africa wants to display a phallic fetish? And how do we determine who gets to display THEIR symbols in the choice spot in the front of the building? Are we going to have to hire a committee? Wouldn't the money, both for the statues and the infastructure, be put to better use in schools and parks?
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-12-08 08:31:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Jungle_Jimanee (user info) at 2004-12-08 08:16:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Anybody notice that BDakotaC has fucked off? These Christians allways do.
Do they ever listen, does it go in, anybody read these reviews and change their mind about the role of religion in government?
Oi Christians, can any of youself confessed sheep change your mind and think for yourself?
Submitted by Naery (user info) at 2004-12-08 06:29:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
+2 for starting a great rant-fest.
-2 for lack of thought on a great topic.
And now, here's a link to an incredibly well-written article about the "Myth of Separation of Church and State"
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
Also, a bit about non-statutory abatements and common law (which derives from Christian morality): http://www.theawaregroup.com/commonlaw.htm
Enjoy!
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 05:42:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"As far schools go, they should teach religion, every fucking religion in the exact same manor putting no one religion above the others."
You've no idea how much I agree with that.
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 05:36:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Btw, congrats to BDakotaC, I smell Most Heated within 24 hours.
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 05:33:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Quasiplasmohedron (user info) at 2004-12-08 04:40:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
"If someone can give some logical arguments against abortion and gay marriage, without any reference to Christianity, I'd support him. This is a challenge to Uberers."
You're joking, right? It's not hard to make an argument against abortion. Defining exactly when a fetus becomes a human being is not something any person is qualified to do, therefore, the only reasonable thing to do is to say that human life begins at conception (because fertilization of the egg is the earliest possible point at which it you could consider a human to exist). To point to any other stage in the development of the fetus as the point at which human life begins seems arbitrary and ludicrous to me, and it's based solely on convenience.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Your entire argument can be summed up in: A fetus in any stage of development is a human and thus abortion is murder.
It's true that this argument is based on logic, but even then, there are flaws. You first say that "Defining exactly when a fetus becomes a human being is not something any person is qualified to do", then go on to define that "human life begins at conception"?
Even many scientists argue amongst themselves about when a fetus can be considered human. If the people who know so much more about the human body than any of us here can't agree, how can we just simply take the 'starting point of life' as fertilization? Who's to say that some fanatic won't take it even further and say that life is not the "combination of sperm and egg", it's the sperm and eggs, and try to ban wanking? It's not for "convenience", neither is it "arbitrary and ludicrous". It's just waiting for the top dogs in science to make up their minds about it, I don't think anyone will dispute that they're the people who know it best.
Submitted by Evil_Morg (user info) at 2004-12-08 05:23:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree Stabkill, fuck France and you barley speak English not French. However this does not change the fact that the US would not have gained independence from England without French aid (self-interest or not). Your forefathers were so grateful for that fact, they made they the statue of liberty a symbol of freedom but any time you fat yanks open your craw holes about the French, your cutting them down. Show some fucking respect.
Speaking of self-interest, how's the Iraqi invasion going? I'm glad to see the US saw the hardships of Iraqi people and stepped in. Crude Oil? No no, the US was there because of injustice.
As for MyNameIsTim, thank you for your ever constructive argument of making fun of my name. You win this one, I am in fact no more evil than 'every other faggot walking around in whatever gay ass country you come from'. But I do sleep well every night knowing that my IQ is roughly twice yours and that the gay ass country that I come from isn't the US. Also by putting YOUR religion above others it is in fact jamming it down my throat.
As far schools go, they should teach religion, every fucking religion in the exact same manor putting no one religion above the others.
Submitted by arcane (user info) at 2004-12-08 05:08:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I guess this post has enough -2's...
Wait no it doesnt.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-12-08 04:43:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
shut the fuck up
Submitted by Quasiplasmohedron (user info) at 2004-12-08 04:40:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"If someone can give some logical arguments against abortion and gay marriage, without any reference to Christianity, I'd support him. This is a challenge to Uberers."
You're joking, right? It's not hard to make an argument against abortion. Defining exactly when a fetus becomes a human being is not something any person is qualified to do, therefore, the only reasonable thing to do is to say that human life begins at conception (because fertilization of the egg is the earliest possible point at which it you could consider a human to exist). To point to any other stage in the development of the fetus as the point at which human life begins seems arbitrary and ludicrous to me, and it's based solely on convenience.
Submitted by tinactin (user info) at 2004-12-08 04:36:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Technically, you're right. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting religion" means simply that, that Congress cannot make any laws in respect to religion, or respecting one religion over another. That doesn't make any implication about whether there is a place for religious idealogy in government, or not. If anything, you can make an arguement that it supports the idea of allowing the blending of church and state, because the Constitution forbids passing a law to prevent it.
On the other hand, this was a worthless post. And I dont really give a shit.
Submitted by Quasiplasmohedron (user info) at 2004-12-08 04:28:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-12-08 03:32:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, wasn't it in France's self-interest to support the uprising against England? They didn't do it out of the kindness of their French hearts.
-----------------------
Take that sentence and replace 'France' and 'French' with 'America' and 'American' and replace 'England' with any of a dozen other countries or regimes and you have an equally true statement.
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 04:27:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2004-12-08 03:20:49 (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree with the poster and stabkill and hidden. the [majority] of the -2ers are making some pretty stupid arguments. nowhere in this post did he 'force his religion down your throat,' although that may have been done by others, don't group every christian in with those. And EvilMorg, eat shit you 15 year old goth motherfucker, you're no more evil than every other faggot walking around in whatever gay ass country you come from.
the following is the world's stupidest argument:
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 02:01:23 (#)
Ranking: -2
If the Saudi government goes over and establishes an Islamic state and forces their beliefs on you(like the way you people are doing to others), will you bitch? Of course, because christians are hypocrites.
___________________________________________________________________________
Your dearest Bush is anti-gay, anti-stem cell research and anti-abortion. He seeks to make laws to that effect. Here are the reasons he chose to do so:
1) The bible says so.
Anti-gay, anti-stem cell research and anti-abortion = CHRISTIAN beliefs.
Law = Force.
Voting for him because he wants to implement those laws = Support for him.
A majority of people voted based on moral issues. How is that NOT forcing religion down our throats? Read: A MAJORITY of CHRISTIAN voters have no qualms about oppressing non-christians with their morals via the force of law. Even if Bush doesn't follow through, the implication that the Christians are willing enough to attempt to do so is bad enough.
As for the poster, "no seperation of church and state" is a favourite reason for Christians who seek to justify their actions. By defending this idea, it's easily enough inferred that he stands with them. I don't think the poster himself will disagree with that assertion.
The Saudi government example is to draw a parallel. A non-Christian in America being told that abortion and gay marriage is illegal (Or that the government is officially against it) solely because some Christian fanatic is in office is the same as an Islamic government telling non-Muslims not to eat pork if they're in charge.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Christian. I'll smack down any Islamic government if they attempt that too. I'm anti any religion trying to force shit down other people's throat without a LOGICAL reason.
Read: The key word here is LOGIC.
If someone can give some logical arguments against abortion and gay marriage, without any reference to Christianity, I'd support him. This is a challenge to Uberers.
Auto +2 for that post if I see it.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-12-08 04:16:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2004-12-08 03:20:49 (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree with the poster and stabkill and hidden.
==================================================
huh?
uh... i was... against... this post...
the poster was basically saying we should include religion without establishing a state religion.
if i don't want the government to have anything to do with a specific religion, what do you suggest i do, leave? pffft, fuck you, i was born here. if i wanted to live in a place where laws are based off of a religion, i'd go to the middle east. America is based on freedom. freedom is that thing that means you aren't restricted. i believe the religious lobby in this country tries to restrict me. (why can't i buy beer on a sunday morning?)
"We are now suffering the consequences of banning God from our public life."
who is suffering? not me. did they build a strip club in your town or something? don't go there. PyroBeast said it best. angry we allow abortions here? don't have one. don't like those evil gays with their perverse sodomy? don't be gay.
i don't see what consequences you're talking about. we can do a lot of things in this country that establishments like the Christian churches look down on and i love it. if you don't love it, don't participate. we don't need religion to tell us what is moral and what isn't so that we can make our laws. there's always the time tested "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "as long as it's not hurting anyone...". things like murder and assault and rape hurt people. we don't need religion to tell us that. and shit like abortion, well, you might say that it's murder, but i won't agree until you can give me a clear definition of when it becomes a real person. otherwise wasting sperm or taking birth control is abortion, too.
i don't want to any religion telling me what is right and wrong. i can decide that for myself. i was built with moral instinct. anyway, if you want to put "in God we trust" on a dollar bill, go for it. i don't care as long as i can still trade it for goods, but don't expect me to say "one nation under God". that's just silly.
ps- ToxicNarcotic is a nutjob that gets nuttier with every post and reply.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-12-08 03:32:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Evil_Morg, Fuck france. The USA doesn't speak French the last time I remember...
Also, wasn't it in France's self-interest to support the uprising against England? They didn't do it out of the kindness of their French hearts.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2004-12-08 03:28:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
HE didn't force his religion on me, he forced his views on religion on me. I would give the same score to someone who posted a thing saying why i should be an atheist.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2004-12-08 03:20:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree with the poster and stabkill and hidden. the [majority] of the -2ers are making some pretty stupid arguments. nowhere in this post did he 'force his religion down your throat,' although that may have been done by others, don't group every christian in with those. And EvilMorg, eat shit you 15 year old goth motherfucker, you're no more evil than every other faggot walking around in whatever gay ass country you come from.
the following is the world's stupidest argument:
Submitted by PyroBeast (user info) at 2004-12-08 02:01:23 (#)
Ranking: -2
If the Saudi government goes over and establishes an Islamic state and forces their beliefs on you(like the way you people are doing to others), will you bitch? Of course, because christians are hypocrites.
Submitted by Evil_Morg (user info) at 2004-12-08 03:14:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No one gives a fuck about your crappy religion. Do not try to force me or anyone else to acknowledge your unsupported believes. You have every right to worship whomever you please and the freedom to think whatever simple little thoughts float thought your insufficient gray matter but when you start staying the government should cater to YOUR religion, I start saying fuck off.
Also, if you ever crack open a history book, you'll find the 'higher power' that your country was founded by was the French. Without the aid supplied by French, the US would be various Canadian provinces and territories. You also managed to get a free statue of liberty tossed into the deal with the bill going to French. So the Canadians have a good reason to hate the French but you ungrateful fucking yanks sure owe a lot to the land of BO and unconditional surrender.
Enjoy your freedom fries fuckers.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-12-08 03:14:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Noah's ark is a water park in Wisconsin dells.
As for the "real" Noah's ark.... it is a bullshit story.
I think one should find it "funny" that any site that supports creationism is funded and ran by church organizations or religious groups as well. There is no legitimate organization that ever supports these fake stories the religious ones want people to believe.
"Noah's Ark" = "The Epic of Gilgamesh"
Fuck fundamentalist fools...muslim & christian.
Submitted by ToxicNarcotic (user info) at 2004-12-08 03:06:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
and there is no difinitivve proof that noahs ark is even still there. people it was made of wood. Gopher wood. and according to history is about 7000 years old. in the climate where it is, where it freezes thaws and freezes over and over again it would have disapeared by now. think about it.
Submitted by ToxicNarcotic (user info) at 2004-12-08 03:04:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
the founding fathers were religous per say. they were mostly deists. deist believe there is a god but one can never actually know them and many of them were actually panentheists which belived we only exist in the psyche of a diety or higher being (not to be confused with pantheists the belief in many gods) if believeing there is some sort of higher being than 85% of americans would be "religious". but we all know that is not the case.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-12-08 02:44:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh yeah, and darko: NOAHS ARK kicks major ass...only problem it is open a few short months and it is still cold as shit during those months sometimes. Fucking dells...
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-12-08 02:44:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think Bart meant the 1st Amendment which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Which actually was meant to say the government will not be in the business of establishing a state-ran church like many other nations had during those days. I will not -2 this post on the basis that this person is correct in saying the founders actually were very religious people and the 1st amendment wasn't designed to do things such as keep prayer out of school and such.
The only reason I'm against it is that once you have "prayer hour" in school you have a bunch of muslim wackos in one corner, christian wackos in another, and then fights and shit based on who is what religion and such and school isn't the place for this shit. It is for learning stuff that ISN'T religion....that's what church is for.
Now those nutjobs that want to remove every reference to religion (the ACLU) that is in school are mindless and stupid. I read the recently a school could not discuss the religious aspect of the thanksgiving holiday...didn't the pilgrims come to america because of religion and to escape religious persecution? Come on now... this is fucking stupid.
We need to discuss what is accurate and real in history and not turn a blind eye because religion is somehow mentioned in good or bad terms. (Salem whichhunt = bad, Pilgrims = Good)
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2004-12-08 02:36:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I've been to noah's ark!!
Submitted by ToxicNarcotic (user info) at 2004-12-08 02:35:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Seems pretty clear to me. It doesn't say "Congress may make laws respecting religions as long as all religions are treated equally".
You are free to believe in whatever whacko religion you want, but my government shall make no law respecting it.
---------------------------------------------
dear bart where is that in the Constitution?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-12-08 02:34:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't know why the christians are so miserable they complain about themselves not getting enough religion...
Oh wait, yes I do. Because they want their views pushed onto everyone else.
Seems to me that common sense says that if I want my kid to be brought up with "the church" that I should be taking them there once or twice a week. I have nobody to complain about other than to myself if my kid decides church is bullshit.
Fuck the church and their bullshit laws, but honestly we have it pretty good in Wisconsin compared to say, Utah, where the mormons have ruined the state. I think its comical how Wendover is a low-life welfare slum on the Utah side and the Nevada side is booming and successful with Casinos and good non-3.2% beers.
I cannot support the church when they believe in stupid things such as 1) Dinosaurs walked the earth when people did, 2) Noah's Ark (not the water park) was real. 3) Slavery is OK as long as you don't enslave your own people, 4) Beating children with a rod is good for them, 5) Staying away from birth control (because they want more church members).
Do you want the church in your life? Fucking read the bible with your family every fucking day. Do you want church in my life? Fuck you.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2004-12-08 02:28:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The Consitution prohibits establishment of a state religion. It does not say that our government should be devoid of all references to and vestiges of religion.
You're an ignorant retard who should probably spend more time reading books instead of burning them. The 1st Amendment to the constitution was actually included to *guarantee* the continuance of state religions.
However your argument doesn't hold water. The application of the 14th amendment to the states following a series of supreme court rulings means that neither states nor the federal government can establish a religion. And be grateful for this application, else your ass could be arrested and tried for what you call "free speech" as all states had the power to do before these rulings (and many did).
Submitted by TimeCop (user info) at 2004-12-08 02:24:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
One time when I was at school, a kid threw up in the hallway. He was about to get paddled, so he told the principa