That's pretty ignorant to say. Maybe they did believe that, but that was over 200 years ago. Times change. That's what Amendments are for.
ignorant to say? why? because it killed your "perfect founding fathers" fantasy?
you prove my point though, so thanks for that. those might have been their beliefs... over 200 years ago. but times change. and thankfully, we have become too enlightened for this "christian nation" bullshit. for the most part.
back then, the country was white, male, and protestant. we've accepted that minorities are every bit as good as whites. we extended the vote to women. we slowly began to understand that not everyone wants an exclusively christian country too... started with catholic, has moved to include other faiths, and hopefully will continue to do so.
...
Yes... yes... yes... YOU are against it. does that mean that EVERY ONE is against it? No.
The fact is... people will vote for candidates who *claim* to be of the same Religion. that is WHY people like Bush and Palin will toss their religion out there.. to pander to the 27% hard-core, Pat Robertson/Jimmy Falwell Evangelical voters who believe thaty will appoint that decisive Supreme Court Seat that will overturn Roe v. Wade or restore morning prayers in public schools or whatever they want the rest of us to believe.
You cannot honestly tell me that you believe those voters do not exist.. can you?
Voters can vote for whatever the fuck they want and for whatever reasons. That's their prerogative. Of course those people exist but that's not wrong. That's their opinion.
And if they're able to control enough of the government to have Roe v. Wade overturned then so be it. That's the way our system works, and I support the way it works, even if I don't support what may be implemented by it. I have genuine faith in the fact that the framers of the Constitution had enough foresight to ensure that the common good can be best protected, which was their goal. One President gets elected, fucks stuff up, then another comes in and cleans up the mess. It's a cycle.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
wrong.
"In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom."
they weren't promoting the religion here, they were forming policies with their religion, and were denied.
thats a trampling of freedom of religion, not separation of church and state.
unless there is more to it than that.
edit: oh i guess you mean Mormon lawmakers. i wouldnt agree with that either probably. i never said the courts never interpreted the laws wrongly
they weren't promoting the religion here, they were forming policies with their religion, and were denied.
No they weren't. They simply wanted to be able to exercise their religion under the 1st Amendment. That right was denied to them by the courts. Policies are formed by Congress, not individuals.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
thats a trampling of freedom of religion, not separation of church and state.
unless there is more to it than that.
not necessarily, they were trying to implement a policy to allow polygamy and were denied on that basis. The Supreme Court referenced it themselves, feel free to argue with them about it.
No they weren't. They simply wanted to be able to exercise their religion under the 1st Amendment. That right was denied to them by the courts. Policies are formed by Congress, not individuals.
already addressed this.
feel free to respond to my other posts whenever you want.
ignorant to say? why? because it killed your "perfect founding fathers" fantasy?
you prove my point though, so thanks for that. those might have been their beliefs... over 200 years ago. but times change. and thankfully, we have become too enlightened for this "christian nation" bullshit. for the most part.
back then, the country was white, male, and protestant. we've accepted that minorities are every bit as good as whites. we extended the vote to women. we slowly began to understand that not everyone wants an exclusively christian country too... started with catholic, has moved to include other faiths, and hopefully will continue to do so.
I agree that there should not be any kind of imposition of religion on people by the government, and so did the founding fathers. That's why freedom of religion is in the fucking Constitution. The social norms of the time were contrary to that principle though, and it took some time for everything to trickle down. At the time, don't forget that they were struggling to get everyone to accept and ratify the Constitution, which is why they couldn't forcefully impose anything. The states were still very divided at the time. Thats the reason for the Federalist Papers, for instance, to convince people that the Constitution was a good thing. Most people supported independent, ununified states. That's the reason they didn;t address slavery or women's rights. That would've turned people away, especially with regard to slavery. That would've turned away the whole South, therefore preventing the ratification of the Constitution. They believed what they believed for a reason.
Can we have a little more respect for other people and their beliefs though? People have a right to believe what they believe, no matter how much you disagree with them.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
separation of church and state is about not using the state to promote a religion. you can form policy from whatever you want, as long as you arent officially promoting a religion using the government.
...
Which is scary... forming a policy based upon belief.
Imagine a leader... that is capable of a nuclear First Strike... believeing that in order to get Jesus' ass back down here... the Armies from the North are supposed to amass around Israel and he can let the birds fly that will make their flesh hit the sand before their bones fall to fulfill Biblical Phrophesy and formulates a policy to achieve that goal. No Constitutional violation... it is policy... that can be masked as Economic Growth or Wars on Terror or whatever they can think of. Policy based on Religion is scary.. that's what fucking Bin Laden does.
As for Church and State... I don't want ANY Church, temple, mosque mixed with our State. and I don't want our State in the affairs of the Chruch or temple or mosque.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I agree that there should not be any kind of imposition of religion on people by the government, and so did the founding fathers. That's why freedom of religion is in the fucking Constitution. The social norms of the time were contrary to that principle though, and it took some time for everything to trickle down. At the time, don't forget that they were struggling to get everyone to accept and ratify the Constitution, which is why they couldn't forcefully impose anything. The states were still very divided at the time. Thats the reason for the Federalist Papers, for instance, to convince people that the Constitution was a good thing. Most people supported independent, ununified states. That's the reason they didn;t address slavery or women's rights. That would've turned people away, especially with regard to slavery. That would've turned away the whole South, therefore preventing the ratification of the Constitution. They believed what they believed for a reason.
Can we have a little more respect for other people and their beliefs though? People have a right to believe what they believe, no matter how much you disagree with them.
i'm ok with people holding christian values. i'm not ok with those people saying this is a christian nation because that's what the founding fathers said and thus it should reflect christian values in its policies. because going by that logic, there is also an argument to be made that slavery and non-suffrage from women are legit positions as well. i find that unconscionable.
...
Which is scary... forming a policy based upon belief.
Imagine a leader... that is capable of a nuclear First Strike... believeing that in order to get Jesus' ass back down here... the Armies from the North are supposed to amass around Israel and he can let the birds fly that will make their flesh hit the sand before their bones fall to fulfill Biblical Phrophesy and formulates a policy to achieve that goal. No Constitutional violation... it is policy... that can be masked as Economic Growth or Wars on Terror or whatever they can think of. Policy based on Religion is scary.. that's what fucking Bin Laden does.
As for Church and State... I don't want ANY Church, temple, mosque mixed with our State. and I don't want our State in the affairs of the Chruch or temple or mosque.
every one bases policy on some belief, religious or not. its up to the voter to not vote in a crazy asshole who think Jesus wants to nuke everyone. there have been plenty of presidents who base decisions on Christian principles (or all of them). some of them made good decisions, some bad.
and many athiests have made some pretty barbaric decisions, too (Stalin, Mao, Hitler).
i'm not ok with those people saying this is a christian nation because that's what the founding fathers said and thus it should reflect christian values in its policies. because going by that logic, there is also an argument to be made that slavery and non-suffrage from women are legit positions as well. i find that unconscionable.
People who say that are wrong. The Founding fathers did not actually believe in any of that either, at least most of them. As I mentioned before, they just needed to appeal to the whole country. If they addressed issues such as those, they would've have failed to get the Constitution ratified. It's what they had to do. That's the reason for discrepancies between what's in the Declaration, for instance, and the actual Constitution (e.g. "all men are created equal"). If they had prohibited slavery in the Constitution to begin with, they would've lost over half the country's support.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
are you saying any religious person is prohibited from legally holding office in the US? i dont see how one can not base his decisions based on his principles, which religious people get from religions (and i suspect many non religious people subconsciously have a moral code based on religion, too.) i dont see how you can separate the two. the separation of church and state has probably been misused from time to time, but i dont think thats what it was intended for.
...
And THERE'S the catch... Elected.
Religion directs personal belief... brought into political ideology... no harm, no foul.
But, if ELECTED and placed in a position of power to decide for the populous... in which case, you cannot disagree with them... FOUL.
Ever heard of checks and balances and the constitution. If they do something to promote religion, then it will be negated.
If they use their belief system to influence their own decision making....well, who doesn't do that?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
no, i don't "believe" all republican are convincing every christian pastor to preach against homosexuality.
but i do KNOW for a fact that in ohio last election, karl rove and the republicans maneuvered a gay marriage ban onto the ballot and then joined with various megachurches and pastors to do massive picketing, protests, pamphleteering, and so on and so forth in order to tout the huge threat of homosexuality and to exhort people into voting against kerry.
i'm aware this isn't everyone. hell, our local catholic priest tore into the congregation for flyering cars in the lot about this during a church and lambasted these people for obscuring the issues and pointed out that war and poverty are every bit as much moral issues as homosexuality or abortion. but that does not mean that the republicans have not made a practice of exploiting hot button religious issues to corral votes whenever they feel they won't win. the democrats do it with minority issues too.
there is no tin foil hat here. you're well aware that this is happening and are just digging in because you're feeling defensive. perhaps if more of you and your brethren took the path of our parish priest and became as willing to call bullshit on your own as you are of us "liberal tin foil" folks, this wouldn't be such a problem.
So your local observation is that preaching against homosexuality and gay marriage wasn't happening, but you're just certain that pretty much every where else it is?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
what the hell are you talking about? no one here is even suggesting she wants to make us all christian. The whole point is that her religious beliefs DOES affect us because if she were to be setting policies in this country that have religious intent, then it is unconstitutional. and, as I and the OP just showed you, her religion does affect her policies.
no argument here.
So what affects the policies of a non-religious person? I think it's their personal belief system. So how is that much different?
BTW, Obama is a Christian so his Christian beliefs may affect his decisions in office.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Exactly! This pick has made me SOOOO much more uncomfortable with the thought of McCain anywhere near the White House. It proves that despite what he says, he is willing to go against his own beliefs in order to get to the Presidency, even at the potential detriment to the country and the world at large if this woman should ever be president. :mad:
could you not say the same thing abotu Obama picking Biden (who i like) Obama has been ruuning as teh person who was agianst the war in Iraq and he picked Biden who voted for teh war and also to contuine to fund the war. he picked Biden i believe becuase he felt that he needed a person who was strong on Forighn affairs as that was something that he needed to win the Presidency. McCain also understood that if he wanted to be president he needed to have the right on his side hence he picked Palin.
lets be realistic, no matter who mccain picked people here woudl not be happy and would be saying the same thing. we don't know how/if Palin would be a detriment to the country. teh people in Alaska seem to like her and it does look like sh ehas done soem good things there.
i think that it is healthy for people to pick others who are not like themselves. we want VP and other members of the government to challange teh president. we have seen what happens when we don't have that.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
So your local observation is that preaching against homosexuality and gay marriage wasn't happening, but you're just certain that pretty much every where else it is?
thanks for proving my point elsewhere that the education system in this country is a failure. i guess reading comprehension isn't your thing.
i clearly stated that my local observation was that this did happen quite frequently and extensively: "but i do KNOW for a fact that in ohio last election, karl rove and the republicans maneuvered a gay marriage ban onto the ballot and then joined with various megachurches and pastors to do massive picketing, protests, pamphleteering, and so on and so forth in order to tout the huge threat of homosexuality and to exhort people into voting against kerry." i saw this firsthand.
but guess what? there were more than one church/parish in my town than the example i gave of a priest that did not do this! imagine that! i was simply offering that example of one parish as an admission that it does not mean every republican is doing this to every parish.
my point was that just because not every parish does this, that does not mean that it does not happen at all, as you seem to be arguing. it's a typical christian debate tactic. "evolution has unexplained phenomena still? clearly the only possible answer then is the book of genesis." so black and white. thanks for providing a standup example of why not to vote for palin and other morons who see nothing in between the extreme absurds you are demonstrating.
no, not every christian is a mindless devotee of republican manipulation. but that does not mean that republicans do not attempt, often successfully, to manipulate christian voters.
i'm willing to bet that if we were talking about democrats manipulating minority votes, you would be 100% on board with me. but hey, there's only one party capable of this kind of dirty emotional manipulation to could issues right? it's only the evil democrats using race as a wedge... the god-fearing republicans would NEVER use religion as a wedge to manipulate voters would they?
thanks for proving my point elsewhere that the education system in this country is a failure. i guess reading comprehension isn't your thing.
i clearly stated that my local observation was that this did happen quite frequently and extensively: "but i do KNOW for a fact that in ohio last election, karl rove and the republicans maneuvered a gay marriage ban onto the ballot and then joined with various megachurches and pastors to do massive picketing, protests, pamphleteering, and so on and so forth in order to tout the huge threat of homosexuality and to exhort people into voting against kerry." i saw this firsthand.
but guess what? there were more than one church/parish in my town than the example i gave of a priest that did not do this! imagine that! i was simply offering that example of one parish as an admission that it does not mean every republican is doing this to every parish.
my point was that just because not every parish does this, that does not mean that it does not happen at all, as you seem to be arguing. it's a typical christian debate tactic. "evolution has unexplained phenomena still? clearly the only possible answer then is the book of genesis." so black and white. thanks for providing a standup example of why not to vote for palin and other morons who see nothing in between the extreme absurds you are demonstrating.
no, not every christian is a mindless devotee of republican manipulation. but that does not mean that republicans do not attempt, often successfully, to manipulate christian voters.
i'm willing to bet that if we were talking about democrats manipulating minority votes, you would be 100% on board with me. but hey, there's only one party capable of this kind of dirty emotional manipulation to could issues right? it's only the evil democrats using race as a wedge... the god-fearing republicans would NEVER use religion as a wedge to manipulate voters would they?
I'll admit, I was twisting what you said a bit and almost thought better of it before I posted. I'll also admit that I'm a bit of a "skimmer" when it comes to longer posts.
I'm guessing that the truth of the matter is that widespread, conspiratorial manipulation by either party probably happens far less than what is frequently and casually mentioned as fact - whether it's issues about homosexuality, minorities, etc.
I think we give these parties far more credit then they deserve when it comes to their power to persuade.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So what affects the policies of a non-religious person? I think it's their personal belief system. So how is that much different?
you can still be religious, and not a sociopath.
BTW, Obama is a Christian so his Christian beliefs may affect his decisions in office.
yeah, but he's not a religious nut, like Palin is.
seriously.
think about it. she thinks the Iraq war is a "task from God." next, she'll be taking us to war with Iran on another "task from God." how does this not bother you people?
yeah, but he's not a religious nut, like Palin is.
seriously.
think about it. she thinks the Iraq war is a "task from God." next, she'll be taking us to war with Iran on another "task from God." how does this not bother you people?
You're splitting hairs now. If someone believes in a Christian God, don't they usually believe that God has a hand in all that is taking place?
So either Obama is basically as nutty as Palin and just doesn't talk about it as much, or he's lying about his Chrisitian faith to get votes.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
could you not say the same thing abotu Obama picking Biden (who i like) Obama has been ruuning as teh person who was agianst the war in Iraq and he picked Biden who voted for teh war and also to contuine to fund the war. he picked Biden i believe becuase he felt that he needed a person who was strong on Forighn affairs as that was something that he needed to win the Presidency. McCain also understood that if he wanted to be president he needed to have the right on his side hence he picked Palin.
hey, I don't like Biden either, but he's CERTAINLY better than Palin. The two of them can fight it out to see who loves Israel more, but at the end of the day, Palin is just insane.
lets be realistic, no matter who mccain picked people here woudl not be happy and would be saying the same thing.
that's not being realistic, that's a baseless accusation.
we don't know how/if Palin would be a detriment to the country.
I've seen enough to know how much damage she can do.
teh people in Alaska seem to like her and it does look like sh ehas done soem good things there.
great, some eskimos are going to decide who should be second-in-command to the most important country in the world.
You're splitting hairs now. If someone believes in a Christian God, don't they usually believe that God has a hand in all that is taking place?
So either Obama is basically as nutty as Palin and just doesn't talk about it as much, or he's lying about his Chrisitian faith to get votes.
what the fuck are you talking about? someone can be Christian and know that a war is not a "task from God". do you even know a single thing about religion? why do you think there's a difference between an "Islamic terrorist's" way of thinking, and a "regular" Muslim's way of thinking? the difference between Obama and Palin is that Palin is the equivalent of a radical terrorist with that kind of thinking.
9/11 being a task from God = you are a fucking crazy terrorist.
Iraq war being a task from God = what's the problem here?
I do not like Palin one bit and would never vote for her, but I think it makes a significant difference that she spoke those words in a church, and not in a public forum.
It is Palin's policy to impose God into what essetially is a corporate/financial/envorinmental issue and matter.
She had absolutley no ground or right to infuse "hearts must be good with god" into that pipeline issue. God and religion has nothing to do with that pipeline.
Building a pipeline is an environmental, financial and corporate issue; which always turns political.
It is her looney, Christian extremist disposition that dictated she make such an absurd and revealing comment.
If you don't see that as mixing religion.....her god, into the issue, then there's nothing more to say.
You see it your way. I see it my way.
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
I'll admit, I was twisting what you said a bit and almost thought better of it before I posted. I'll also admit that I'm a bit of a "skimmer" when it comes to longer posts.
I'm guessing that the truth of the matter is that widespread, conspiratorial manipulation by either party probably happens far less than what is frequently and casually mentioned as fact - whether it's issues about homosexuality, minorities, etc.
I think we give these parties far more credit then they deserve when it comes to their power to persuade.
i must not be making myself very clear. i agree with you that i don't think either party has some grand conspiracy to manipulate votes on a regular basis. i'm saying that it's a tactic of desperation both parties resort to when they feel they can't win and it often works.
thus my example about john kerry. he was a weak candidate and the swift boat/defense thing wasn't working. kerry was still close. so in key states like ohio, they brought up the wedge issues... kerry is pro-gay and pro-abortion. i think this is why palin was selected... obama was killing mccain in popularity and the republicans were having no luck with independents. so they bring in palin... a fiery pro-life ultra-conservative. she has whipped the fringe into a frenzy. this election was all about international relations and the economy... until about a week ago. now it's about palin and her religious views. again, the cultural wedge issues in play. it's not a conspiracy, it's a desperation tactic.
hey, I don't like Biden either, but he's CERTAINLY better than Palin. The two of them can fight it out to see who loves Israel more, but at the end of the day, Palin is just insane.
that's not being realistic, that's a baseless accusation.
I've seen enough to know how much damage she can do.
great, some eskimos are going to decide who should be second-in-command to the most important country in the world.
first, who could Mccain have picked that would not start a shitstorm here? second what have you seen, that can't be apply to everyone else running? wow, the last comment is just too dumb to even comment on.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
first, who could Mccain have picked that would not start a shitstorm here? second what have you seen, that can't be apply to everyone else running? wow, the last comment is just too dumb to even comment on.
Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge, Bobby Jindal, Kay Bailey Hutchinson. I don't agree with their policies, but I would have respected those choices. But you're right in that none of them probably would have generated as much news as Palin has.
every one bases policy on some belief, religious or not. its up to the voter to not vote in a crazy asshole who think Jesus wants to nuke everyone. there have been plenty of presidents who base decisions on Christian principles (or all of them). some of them made good decisions, some bad.
and many athiests have made some pretty barbaric decisions, too (Stalin, Mao, Hitler).
...
Yes. Personally... I base my decisions on Right or Wrong.
And I'm not speaking Atheists, here... I'm speaking of a person in power who will make decisions... Hopefully... on what is Right and what is Wrong... not, based on his/her religious belief.
...
Oh... and by the way... Hitler was a devout Catholic who believed in Jesus. He often spoke of God and his hatred of the Jews... whom he accused of killing Jesus... not the Romans.
"As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven. "
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 3
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ... "
- Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922
"The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms. ...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism... "
- Adolf Hitler in an article in the Völkischer Beobachter, February 29, 1929, on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican
...
But, yes.. PEOPLE do Evil things. Some base their decisions on Religion while others blame religion as the cause.
What I am saying is that when a person goes into the Seat of The Presidency (or Congress or The Supreme Court)... he/she must NOT steer our country towards one religion over the others... be it with legislation or public policy. The latter does NOT come under the scrutiny of our Checks and Balances. They can call on their belief system for guidence.. but, their belief system should NOT be the goal of their decision making.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
ignorant to say? why? because it killed your "perfect founding fathers" fantasy?
you prove my point though, so thanks for that. those might have been their beliefs... over 200 years ago. but times change. and thankfully, we have become too enlightened for this "christian nation" bullshit. for the most part.
back then, the country was white, male, and protestant. we've accepted that minorities are every bit as good as whites. we extended the vote to women. we slowly began to understand that not everyone wants an exclusively christian country too... started with catholic, has moved to include other faiths, and hopefully will continue to do so.
Voters can vote for whatever the fuck they want and for whatever reasons. That's their prerogative. Of course those people exist but that's not wrong. That's their opinion.
And if they're able to control enough of the government to have Roe v. Wade overturned then so be it. That's the way our system works, and I support the way it works, even if I don't support what may be implemented by it. I have genuine faith in the fact that the framers of the Constitution had enough foresight to ensure that the common good can be best protected, which was their goal. One President gets elected, fucks stuff up, then another comes in and cleans up the mess. It's a cycle.
-Reagan
unless there is more to it than that.
edit: oh i guess you mean Mormon lawmakers. i wouldnt agree with that either probably. i never said the courts never interpreted the laws wrongly
No they weren't. They simply wanted to be able to exercise their religion under the 1st Amendment. That right was denied to them by the courts. Policies are formed by Congress, not individuals.
-Reagan
feel free to respond to my other posts whenever you want.
I agree that there should not be any kind of imposition of religion on people by the government, and so did the founding fathers. That's why freedom of religion is in the fucking Constitution. The social norms of the time were contrary to that principle though, and it took some time for everything to trickle down. At the time, don't forget that they were struggling to get everyone to accept and ratify the Constitution, which is why they couldn't forcefully impose anything. The states were still very divided at the time. Thats the reason for the Federalist Papers, for instance, to convince people that the Constitution was a good thing. Most people supported independent, ununified states. That's the reason they didn;t address slavery or women's rights. That would've turned people away, especially with regard to slavery. That would've turned away the whole South, therefore preventing the ratification of the Constitution. They believed what they believed for a reason.
Can we have a little more respect for other people and their beliefs though? People have a right to believe what they believe, no matter how much you disagree with them.
-Reagan
Which is scary... forming a policy based upon belief.
Imagine a leader... that is capable of a nuclear First Strike... believeing that in order to get Jesus' ass back down here... the Armies from the North are supposed to amass around Israel and he can let the birds fly that will make their flesh hit the sand before their bones fall to fulfill Biblical Phrophesy and formulates a policy to achieve that goal. No Constitutional violation... it is policy... that can be masked as Economic Growth or Wars on Terror or whatever they can think of. Policy based on Religion is scary.. that's what fucking Bin Laden does.
As for Church and State... I don't want ANY Church, temple, mosque mixed with our State. and I don't want our State in the affairs of the Chruch or temple or mosque.
Hail, Hail!!!
i'm ok with people holding christian values. i'm not ok with those people saying this is a christian nation because that's what the founding fathers said and thus it should reflect christian values in its policies. because going by that logic, there is also an argument to be made that slavery and non-suffrage from women are legit positions as well. i find that unconscionable.
every one bases policy on some belief, religious or not. its up to the voter to not vote in a crazy asshole who think Jesus wants to nuke everyone. there have been plenty of presidents who base decisions on Christian principles (or all of them). some of them made good decisions, some bad.
and many athiests have made some pretty barbaric decisions, too (Stalin, Mao, Hitler).
the entire point here though is that Palin taking us on wars that are 'tasks from God' should not be allowed in the government.
people who actually defend this are just insane, in my opinion.
People who say that are wrong. The Founding fathers did not actually believe in any of that either, at least most of them. As I mentioned before, they just needed to appeal to the whole country. If they addressed issues such as those, they would've have failed to get the Constitution ratified. It's what they had to do. That's the reason for discrepancies between what's in the Declaration, for instance, and the actual Constitution (e.g. "all men are created equal"). If they had prohibited slavery in the Constitution to begin with, they would've lost over half the country's support.
-Reagan
Ever heard of checks and balances and the constitution. If they do something to promote religion, then it will be negated.
If they use their belief system to influence their own decision making....well, who doesn't do that?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So your local observation is that preaching against homosexuality and gay marriage wasn't happening, but you're just certain that pretty much every where else it is?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So what affects the policies of a non-religious person? I think it's their personal belief system. So how is that much different?
BTW, Obama is a Christian so his Christian beliefs may affect his decisions in office.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
could you not say the same thing abotu Obama picking Biden (who i like) Obama has been ruuning as teh person who was agianst the war in Iraq and he picked Biden who voted for teh war and also to contuine to fund the war. he picked Biden i believe becuase he felt that he needed a person who was strong on Forighn affairs as that was something that he needed to win the Presidency. McCain also understood that if he wanted to be president he needed to have the right on his side hence he picked Palin.
lets be realistic, no matter who mccain picked people here woudl not be happy and would be saying the same thing. we don't know how/if Palin would be a detriment to the country. teh people in Alaska seem to like her and it does look like sh ehas done soem good things there.
i think that it is healthy for people to pick others who are not like themselves. we want VP and other members of the government to challange teh president. we have seen what happens when we don't have that.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
thanks for proving my point elsewhere that the education system in this country is a failure. i guess reading comprehension isn't your thing.
i clearly stated that my local observation was that this did happen quite frequently and extensively: "but i do KNOW for a fact that in ohio last election, karl rove and the republicans maneuvered a gay marriage ban onto the ballot and then joined with various megachurches and pastors to do massive picketing, protests, pamphleteering, and so on and so forth in order to tout the huge threat of homosexuality and to exhort people into voting against kerry." i saw this firsthand.
but guess what? there were more than one church/parish in my town than the example i gave of a priest that did not do this! imagine that! i was simply offering that example of one parish as an admission that it does not mean every republican is doing this to every parish.
my point was that just because not every parish does this, that does not mean that it does not happen at all, as you seem to be arguing. it's a typical christian debate tactic. "evolution has unexplained phenomena still? clearly the only possible answer then is the book of genesis." so black and white. thanks for providing a standup example of why not to vote for palin and other morons who see nothing in between the extreme absurds you are demonstrating.
no, not every christian is a mindless devotee of republican manipulation. but that does not mean that republicans do not attempt, often successfully, to manipulate christian voters.
i'm willing to bet that if we were talking about democrats manipulating minority votes, you would be 100% on board with me. but hey, there's only one party capable of this kind of dirty emotional manipulation to could issues right? it's only the evil democrats using race as a wedge... the god-fearing republicans would NEVER use religion as a wedge to manipulate voters would they?
I'll admit, I was twisting what you said a bit and almost thought better of it before I posted. I'll also admit that I'm a bit of a "skimmer" when it comes to longer posts.
I'm guessing that the truth of the matter is that widespread, conspiratorial manipulation by either party probably happens far less than what is frequently and casually mentioned as fact - whether it's issues about homosexuality, minorities, etc.
I think we give these parties far more credit then they deserve when it comes to their power to persuade.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
seriously.
think about it. she thinks the Iraq war is a "task from God." next, she'll be taking us to war with Iran on another "task from God." how does this not bother you people?
You're splitting hairs now. If someone believes in a Christian God, don't they usually believe that God has a hand in all that is taking place?
So either Obama is basically as nutty as Palin and just doesn't talk about it as much, or he's lying about his Chrisitian faith to get votes.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
9/11 being a task from God = you are a fucking crazy terrorist.
Iraq war being a task from God = what's the problem here?
hypocrisy at it's finest.
i must not be making myself very clear. i agree with you that i don't think either party has some grand conspiracy to manipulate votes on a regular basis. i'm saying that it's a tactic of desperation both parties resort to when they feel they can't win and it often works.
thus my example about john kerry. he was a weak candidate and the swift boat/defense thing wasn't working. kerry was still close. so in key states like ohio, they brought up the wedge issues... kerry is pro-gay and pro-abortion. i think this is why palin was selected... obama was killing mccain in popularity and the republicans were having no luck with independents. so they bring in palin... a fiery pro-life ultra-conservative. she has whipped the fringe into a frenzy. this election was all about international relations and the economy... until about a week ago. now it's about palin and her religious views. again, the cultural wedge issues in play. it's not a conspiracy, it's a desperation tactic.
I have heard of checks and balances and the Constitution but I believe our government, for the most part, completely forgot what those where.
first, who could Mccain have picked that would not start a shitstorm here? second what have you seen, that can't be apply to everyone else running? wow, the last comment is just too dumb to even comment on.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge, Bobby Jindal, Kay Bailey Hutchinson. I don't agree with their policies, but I would have respected those choices. But you're right in that none of them probably would have generated as much news as Palin has.
Yes. Personally... I base my decisions on Right or Wrong.
And I'm not speaking Atheists, here... I'm speaking of a person in power who will make decisions... Hopefully... on what is Right and what is Wrong... not, based on his/her religious belief.
...
Oh... and by the way... Hitler was a devout Catholic who believed in Jesus. He often spoke of God and his hatred of the Jews... whom he accused of killing Jesus... not the Romans.
"As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven. "
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 3
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ... "
- Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922
"The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms. ...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism... "
- Adolf Hitler in an article in the Völkischer Beobachter, February 29, 1929, on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican
...
But, yes.. PEOPLE do Evil things. Some base their decisions on Religion while others blame religion as the cause.
What I am saying is that when a person goes into the Seat of The Presidency (or Congress or The Supreme Court)... he/she must NOT steer our country towards one religion over the others... be it with legislation or public policy. The latter does NOT come under the scrutiny of our Checks and Balances. They can call on their belief system for guidence.. but, their belief system should NOT be the goal of their decision making.
Hail, Hail!!!