Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on November 15, 2004, 02:09:47 pm
-
HR3799: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/23/33620/186
http://context.themoscowtimes.com/index.php?aid=131199
Those who support it
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03799:@@@P
-
BUH!??!
It's a joke, right? Tell me it's a f*cking joke.
-
Oh well.
If you ask me, it's about damn time for you 'mericans to show a little backbone against stupid ****ing **** like this.
And remember the advice of your founding fathers: a little revolution every now and then is good for the nation, it keeps the government in check.
-
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism
Bwahaha! And the so-called conservatives are supporting this? It would appear all the true conservatives have been forced out of the Republican party, and all thats left is an alliance of Bible thumpers and warmongers.
Yeehaw!
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
BUH!??!
It's a joke, right? Tell me it's a f*cking joke.
no joke - i called and *****ed our Rep Steve King R, IA-5 for being on the sponsor list
-
where's anon when you need him... Seems to me like an email-spammer would come in mighty useful right about now.
-
I hope you boys do something useful about this... you're looking more like these middle eastern religious-nut countries every day.
-
good thing this. I hope it goes through.
-
kode: are you on crack?
or did you just seriously publically admit to being a FASCIST THEOCRATIST
-
He might be taking the piss....
-
please translate that to american
-
Originally posted by Kazan
please translate that to moron
Very well, dear backward one.
There is a little concept, greatly used among those with a spark of intelligence about them. It is generally known as sarcasm. People such as yourself seem unable to grasp this idea, probably due to a mental inferiority.
Hence, taking the piss means to use sarcasm, in short.
-
friendly note: can we please avoid glaring capitalization unless completely necessary. Don't worry, people will still read all the non-capitalized content...
...well, most of them do anyway.
-
Petrarch: i was talking about the slang vyper used -- i thought "taking the piss" means to use sarcasm" -- but i wasn't sure
[edit]rictor - it's called yelling
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Petrarch: i was talking about the slang vyper used
No ****.
[edit]rictor - it's called yelling
No ****.
-
please post a link to the actual bill or atleast a non partisan abstract. Articles titled pin heads and a forum are hardly credible, atleast in my mind. Secondly, this would require a constitutional admendment and I promise you, THIS WOULD NOT PASS. It is too far reaching, and reaks.
-
So not even the Bushies support it, eh?
Its nice to know that at least you have a line in the sand, though it may not be where I would prefer.
-
redmenace HR3799
-
Medieval drivel like this never passes. There is a point after which even the sheep fear to follow.
-
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3799:
Take a look through it.
`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.
-
You got it spot on Kazan.
Hey we've got a politics thread with... less politics. Solid!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
So not even the Bushies support it, eh?
Its nice to know that at least you have a line in the sand, though it may not be where I would prefer.
:ha: as Kazan can testify, I didn't support either canidate. I could not in good conscience vote for either canidate. I do have nack for taking the opposite position alot of the time. Don't assume that because I don't agree with the lot of you about the tank in LA streets, criticism of the election, and tactics used in Faluja that I am a staunch republican or a "bushie."
As for the bill, I have always thought the reliance on secondary sources of law a little ridiculous, but should not be completly ignored. As well as the restatement of law. They should, personally be given less weight, but not completly ignored.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
kode: are you on crack?
or did you just seriously publically admit to being a FASCIST THEOCRATIST
I don't see why I should care, actually. I don't have to live there.
but, uh, yeah. I was somewhat sarcastic as well.
-
Theocracy? Pfft - not even the Church can get it right. Yeah, there'll be a theocracy when Jesus comes back to rule and reign over all the earth - not before that.
So, if your beliefs preclude the chance of that event happening, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. ;)
-
Theocracies have existed. As far as I'm concerned, historical precedent is proof enough that the possibility is real.
-
Thankfully, my congressman is not on there.
-
But to be a theocracy, there has to be a church in power. And there is no way in hell that Bush is going to get ordained or whatever the equalivalent for your particular religon of choice may be.
-
I agree. I myself stated earlier that I think it would be nigh on impossible for such a system to take hold, but that is in the current political climate. I think that if America were to continue its rightward drift, the door would be forced open wider and wider. But the pendulum generally swings back before it goes to the rabid extreme.
-
You know, this is completely OT but I feel like going to a club. For some reason The Garage actually appeals to me right now....
-
the gay bar! gay bar!?
-
:wtf:
-
No that'd be Bennets if I wanted that...
-
No, that's "Flamers". :p
Anyhow, Joe Pitts supports this!? I'ma drive down there tomorrow (his office is like 5min from my house, in Kennett Square) and give him a piece of my mind.
This thing basically says (from what I can tell) that, for instance if someone in power (a cop for instance) wanted to stone a gay person to death and cited a religious edict (one of those obscure Leviticus passages perhaps), they could not be prosecuted.
Or if someone in power is pissed off, they can basically do what they want and get off scot-free if they can come up with a religious justification.
The hell with that. :mad:
I am NOT going to let my country become a police state, for any reason. I am not going to stand by and let Uncle Sam become Big Brother, and I'm definitely not going to let anyone use God as an excuse to do it.
:hopping:
-
For the foreigners: www.garageglasgow.co.uk << was what i was referring to. Although I'm not a huge fan, it's the most popular dance club for students in Glasgow.
-
redmenace, look its not very confusing. Vyper just wants to start a war, a nuclear war, at the gay bar! gay bar! gay bar!
-
now you all know why we like our guns.
-
...though looking at that particular passage it looks more like it's suposed to protect people in the government from prosicution based on there proclamation of faith, as in if you get aressted and the cop says "you God damned basturd!" you wouldn't be able to use that as some sort of defence.
though it also says "an element of Federal, State, or local government" so I'm thinking that's gona get the 'whole nativity in town hall' treatment, that's what is going to be sited as the reason for makeing this, but I think this is defenately a first step twards theocracy, but I don't think it would do it all in one shot.
anyway, like I said, get'n my gun.
-
All right. We have two decidedly very slanted sources making reference to the same article and using a quote from this bill that does not appear to have any substantiation at all. Conclusion? Someone's making a mountain out of a molehill. Come on, people. Even if this bill were to exist in the overblown fashion that these two sites seem to think it does, it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing the House, much less the Senate. Plus, it would be immediately struck down as unconstitutional as soon as it was challenged. You're telling me you believe some over-spun hype from two decidedly disreputable-looking, biased sites? I know you people are smarter than that; well, most of you at least. Oh, guess this makes me a THEOFASCIST!!!!11!1!!11
-
The way I interpret this is that it would give religion a more prominent role in making/interpreting laws. Which means that the "Marriage Protection" amendment to the constitution could pass with little trouble, and generally weaken the judicial branch.
Thats what I think is the main jist of this law, to weaken the judicial branch and strenghten the executive branch. Since the main way in which the Supreme Court can challenge the Executive branch is by declaring their action unconstitutional, this would restrict when and why they can deem laws or action unconstitutional.
And since Bush is likely to appoint 2 or 3 judges to the already rightward Supreme Court, this law is probably meant as a long-term thing, not really necessary in the short term when you have such a favourable Supreme Court.
-
Mongoose: yes house.gov is a BIASED SOURCE
mongoose you're a ****ing jackass - you just try playing all this **** down because YOU LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON
stop trying to ruin what america stands for you ****ing fascist pig
-
That is one angry, angry man.
-
i have much reason to be angry
-
So does everyone in this world, and as long as we are slaves to it, the world will be the same.
-
Oh, I think you're angry enough for everyone else on the forum...
And a bit overreactive... This has as much a chance of being passed as you do of being nominated President of Earth...
-
The sheer fact that such nonsense was put forward is what pissed me off...
-
"We must look forward, to the future *points forward*, and not back, to the past *points behind himself*"
-
Anger leads to hate, hate leads to....dammit, I always forget this part.
-
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering!
-
Jackov Smirnoff said it.
Ok, maybe it was Dan Quaile, but thet's irrelevant.
-
Uh...
"Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it?"
Not sure how well it fits, but it's something :p
Is that even how the saying goes? :nervous: :D
-
If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college.
-
(http://www.slagg.org/images/fun/Yoda.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Raa
If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college.
Lewis Black...:lol:!
-
Doobies!!
Everyone take a deep breath, mmk?
-
Since we decided to start quoting starwars...
YODA:...Soon will I rest. Yes, forever sleep. Earned it, I have.
LUKE: Master Yoda, you can't die.
YODA : Strong am I with the Force... but not that strong! Twilight is upon me and soon night must fall. That is the way of things ... the way of the Force.
-
My baloney has a first name, its h-o-m-e-r, My baloney has a second name, its h-o-m-e-r...
-
Ok, let's try to keep somewhat on-topic from here on out...
-
Right...
We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
stop trying to ruin what america stands for you ****ing fascist pig
And what exactly, my dear Kazan, does America stand for?
This strikes me as an effort to limit the power that Activist judges have in effecting law that the liberal/atheistic/red diaper doper babies can't get through Congress. It's not the way to go about it. A better way would be to limit the scope of precedent, preferably to the point where a case would be decided on the relatonship between the evidence and the law with no interference from a pansy ass trial lawyer trying to force a beneficial decision for him or his client when the law doesn't support his position.
-
Are you familiar with the principle of zealous representation? The entire idea behind our legal system is that we must always push the strength of both sides to the limit, so that we can be as sure as possible that the person charged with a crime is not being tried by a society with preconceived conclusions, but by BLIND justice. A defense attorney is duty-bound to represent his or her client with as much zeal as he or she can muster, otherwise we run the risk of steamrolling over innocent people, (which happens plenty as it is.)
And I love it when people spit out "atheistic" as though it's some kind of venomous, hell-spawned curse.
-
america stands for freedom liberator - freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion
when you start writing laws based upon religious believe you destroy that
when someone rants about "activist judges" it demostrates that
A) they don't know **** about the judicial system
B) that they're a regressive ****tard who wants to destroy the system of checks and balances that protect our rights
C) that they're an antichoice, anti-religious freedom, theocratist fascist -- because this is the absolute ONLY demographic who *****es about "activist judges"
Liberator GET AN EDUCATION
-
libby do you realy want the government in your church? mandateing what God is and howhe/she/it is to be worshiped?
failure to conform to these mandates being enforced by law?
didn't think so, get on the right side of this one.
-
libby isn't going to get on the right side of this one -- because it's "his church" writing the dictates that they want to make into law
-
well, to be fair, something like 85% of Americans are Chrisitan (mostly Methodist, or whatever the one down south is) though that doesn't mean the federal government has any business favouring any one religion.
-
even I know not all christians are the same thing
fundamentalists are a very small proportion of christians in america - but if their agenda gets passed all christians (along with all non christians) are forced to be fundies
oh.. ps it cannot be 85% because 10-12% are atheist/agnostic and then there are the other non-christian religions to fit in there
-
from what I remember, and don't hold me on this, its 60% methodist, 20% catholic and 2 or 3% other Chrisitian.
-
we'll got news for you: that's very inaccurate
-
No, Catholicism is definitely still the individual religious institution suscribed to by the most Americans. Protestants outnumber them, yes, but no single protestant denomination comes close on its own. Christians make up somewhat over half of the national population, with athiests/agnostics (lumped together because they do make up about the same demographic), Jews, and Muslims not too far behind. America really is much more religiously diverse than outsiders give us credit for, mostly thanks to a certain recently re-elected president.
-
according to ARIS 2001 only about 75% of the population is christian.. only 16% is baptist - and it's conservative southern baptists that are driving the dominionist/christo-fascist movement
-
You and you're reps have mis-intepreted "Freedom of Religion". You seem to think that it's "Freedom from Religion", it's not. As I have repeatedly reminded you, there is no guarentee that religion will be kept separate from government, only that government will be kept away from affecting religion by having the Government, not individuals, from advocating a specific faith over another.
BTW, you're also accusing us of a similar behavior that we see in you're side.
You claim we're trying to oppress you and we vice versa. In truth, what we are doing is trying to prevent the alteration of the general moral code of society by litigation instead of natural devopment.
-
by passing a law that says 'God is almighty and you can not question'?
come now lib, do you want to end up like Iran?
people getting carted out becase they are heretics?
what do you think this is going to lead to?
do you think people are going to take this **** lying down?
what would you do if somehow a law got passed saying that there was no god and that asserting that there was one was a punishable offence?
this is how this law is percieved by us a-moral atheists, so don't dance, answer, what whould you do?
what happens when a budist judge expresses her faith?
think of all the little herricies that are within your church, like eh Triclavianism, what if the government made a ruleing on that, is that what you want? that is were this side of the slope leads.
"...the senate today passes article s.4351 the devinity act stateing that the trinity is in fact three seperate entities"
-
First of all Kazan, re-read my post. Did I say anywhere that I agreed with this measure? No. In fact, based on the single quote given, none of us really know the full context of this bill, so debate on it is mostly frivolous. Regarding house.gov, nowhere did I see the quote referenced in those articles on that site; if you can give me the link, then I'll agree with you.
Someone asked above why some people treat the term "atheist" as a virtual curse. I'll tell you why: it's because of people like Kazan. Get a monumental-sized clue, buddy: calling people "Christofascists" is just going to give fundamentals more motivation. You seem to think that everyone who voted for Bush or who has conservative viewpoints is an uneducated, rednecked, intolerant bigot. Pull your head out of your ass and take a look around. And, for the last time, quit your *****ing about the election!
-
Kaz, the man is right about some things, and that is why this is particularly worrying to me.
I had one last thought I wanted to make before I went to bed, I wanted everyone to think about, America's greatest value,
Freedom, what is it?
I realy think we need to think about things more than we want to, so tell me libm and anyone else who agrees with this, what is freedom to you?
-
Liberator, I fail to understand how "Congress shall make no law concerning religion" can be misinterpreted. Government is not to be involved, period. No exceptions. You have to be extremely ignorant of the basic law of the land, or openly hostile to the principles that this country was founded on, to actually believe it was meant any other way. If you give religion a place in government, government takes a role in religion, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
As for trying to "prevent the alteration of the general moral code of society by litigation instead of natural devopment," well, it is simply contradictory. You are advocating the litigation of morality, and trying to impose your moral beliefs on the greater whole rather than letting the country develop its accepted morals in a natural way. Do you not see this? Odd how if you change the contexts of the arguments ever so slightly, your opinions can change completely.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
If you give religion a place in government, government takes a role in religion, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
It's a one way street though.
First Ammendment to the United States ConstitutionCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
Congress, that is the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall not make or consider any potential law that establishes one religion above another.
This can be taken to mean that the congress can't make a law that affects religions in any way, except where a given religions practices conflicts with other more basic laws(literal blood sacrfice, ect). It doesn't say, however, anything about religion not being involved in government. Indeed, religion does have a place because it speaks for large numbers of people, whether you personally agree with them or not. Religion should only be part of the arrangment though. History has shown that the Church is a poor governing agency(dark ages).
@bobb:
Freedom to me, is the right and ability to do anything I want so long as it doesn't adversly affect others without their participation or permission.
@Kaz:
I understand now, you're irrational hatred of religion stems from you're fear of it.
-
But the problem with allowing religion to then influence the government except in the barest of ways is because then the government is favoring one religion over another.
Thus, it is a two-way street.
If an amendment is passed saying god is the supreme authority above the law, and god's law holds precedent, that means that religion is influencing the government in a manner that favors one religion (well three technically, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) over all others, and leading to that one religion being used in legal matters which can interferre with other religions.
Then there's the mess of interpretation. Some will claim that it's illegal to eat shellfish due to this law, and you should be stoned. Afterall, since god's law overrides murder is now possible. Other judges could rule that it's irrelevant due to the new testament or koran. Yet still, other judges could say things like gay marriage are permissable since the new testament voices no objections against it just as there are no objections to shellfish.
So overall, this is a law that does not benefit even the most pious, as there are more loopholes in religious law than even common law. Thus why there are so many different sects...
Then there's the issue of who's god is god? By declaring in law that god is Allah, Jehovah, the Trinity, Cthulu or whatnot you are then by definition forming a state religion. By not declaring by law who is god, then you're in the interpretation issue which means that the law will vary greatly from judge to judge. Far more so than the common law system. Legal systems need to be concise and consistent to operate properly.
So, the logical execution of this law is unconstitutional, despite the fact that the wording may permit it to be constitutional for some.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Theocracy? Pfft - not even the Church can get it right. Yeah, there'll be a theocracy when Jesus comes back to rule and reign over all the earth - not before that.
So, if your beliefs preclude the chance of that event happening, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. ;)
What he said. Stop worrying about America becoming a theocracy, when it really happens we'll actually see some real justice - and I suspect that no one can deny that in the end, that's what they really want.
-
[color=66ff00]All you people who voted Bush: I told you so.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by vyper
For the foreigners: www.garageglasgow.co.uk << was what i was referring to. Although I'm not a huge fan, it's the most popular dance club for students in Glasgow.
Neddy, though. Think my brothers been attacked a few times there by the wee scum (he's given up going now, probably grown out of it, too)
Originally posted by Liberator
You and you're reps have mis-intepreted "Freedom of Religion". You seem to think that it's "Freedom from Religion", it's not. As I have repeatedly reminded you, there is no guarentee that religion will be kept separate from government, only that government will be kept away from affecting religion by having the Government, not individuals, from advocating a specific faith over another.
BTW, you're also accusing us of a similar behavior that we see in you're side.
You claim we're trying to oppress you and we vice versa. In truth, what we are doing is trying to prevent the alteration of the general moral code of society by litigation instead of natural devopment.
Why should aetheism not be given the same regard as religion when it comes to law making? If religion is allowed to influence or affect in any way national (or even local) policy decisions, then it will affect both those who subscribe to a different religion and whose who choose to subscribe to none.
By introducing God into the equation, you'r instantly delegating some responsibility of the development of society to a higher power - a higher power which is*unproven, unproveable, and highly open to biased interpretation.
Religion, should be entirely seperate with government and law. Simply, you have a set of societal laws which are (or should be in principle) defined with the interests of society as a whole. Alongside that are any laws or morals defined by your religion (if applicable) - you follow those voluntarily, and within the societal law (i.e. no human sacrifices).
But if you expect or force people to obey laws which are founded in your own (or someones) religious beliefs rather than a societal need (i.e. against homosexuality, abortion in particular, also policy decisions to support religious based organisations, charities, etc), then that is clearly infringing their own rights to believe differently
*not wishing to start a religious thread, but it has to be said
+incidentally; Pat robertson == dick (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/359136.stm) (see midway down in particular)
-
[q]Stop worrying about America becoming a theocracy, when it really happens we'll actually see some real justice[/q]
If you're Christian...:rolleyes:
-
Nah, I always figured Jesus would be pretty cool about the whole multiple religions thing.
I mean, he looks like a hippy, doesn't he? Probably well into Rastafarianism, always being persued by the man, managed to cure the munchies of thousands with a loaf of bread and a fish.
-
I know Bush gets carried away but you can't say Jesus will be in charge...
-
I took the meaning to be that Bush would be smote were he to turn the US into a theocracy.
-
Over 4 million evangelicals would disagree.
We're lucky religion isn't as big in the UK overall (foregoing the issues in the west of scotland).
Well, 'cept the muslims....
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Congress, that is the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall not make or consider any potential law that establishes one religion above another.
Explain how estabilshing your god as the supreme authority in all matters isn't establishing christianity as above let say, hinduism?
If a Hindu became a supreme court judge this law states that he'd have to take the word of deity he doesn't believe in as being superior to his own. You've basically forced him to have to act as if he believes in God.
How can that possibly not be a violation of his religious rights?
"In Scotland, you can't believe how strong the homosexuals are. It's just simply unbelievable," he told his viewers.
I think someone needs to explain what a kilt is to Pat Robertson. He seems to be labouring under a misconception :lol:
-
Originally posted by vyper
Over 4 million evangelicals would disagree.
We're lucky religion isn't as big in the UK overall (foregoing the issues in the west of scotland).
Well, 'cept the muslims....
Nah, the whole Old-Firm thing is just using religion as an excuse for a windup anyways nowadays. I doubt many of the nutters go to church, yknow?
*looking forward to OF on Saturday*
-
Originally posted by Liberator
"Freedom from Religion",
contrary to your assertions that's included in freedom of religion
Originally posted by Liberator
As I have repeatedly reminded you, there is no guarentee that religion will be kept separate from government,
yes there is - you just choose not to read the legalese correctly
Originally posted by Liberator
BTW, you're also accusing us of a similar behavior that we see in you're side.
horse****
we're enforcing government neturality on religion - which is enforcing everyones freedom to their own religion
if government neutrality is violated everyone's rights are diminished - and most everyone's are violated
Originally posted by Liberator
You claim we're trying to oppress you and we vice versa.
however from the legal standpoint - we're correct, you're not
Originally posted by Liberator
In truth, what we are doing is trying to prevent the alteration of the general moral code of society by litigation instead of natural devopment.
the natural developement is already done liberator! you're resisting the natural developement
-
Lib: it is not your job to enforce morals, nor is it the government's job. As long as no one is harming anyone else, and offending your sense of "traditional morals" doesn't count as harming, then they are free to do it.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
First of all Kazan, re-read my post. Did I say anywhere that I agreed with this measure?
defending it implies such, especially when supporting such a measure would be right in line with your political views
Originally posted by Mongoose
No. In fact, based on the single quote given, none of us really know the full context of this bill, so debate on it is mostly frivolous.
if you had two neurons you'd know to look up HR3799 on house.gov
WHICH I HAVE AND I'VE READ THE ENTIRE BLOODLY THING - and it's very clear SO HAVE THEY
Originally posted by Mongoose
Regarding house.gov, nowhere did I see the quote referenced in those articles on that site; if you can give me the link, then I'll agree with you.
because the people who read those articles tend to know how to do this -- use the search
Originally posted by Mongoose
Someone asked above why some people treat the term "atheist" as a virtual curse. I'll tell you why: it's because of people like Kazan. Get a monumental-sized clue, buddy: calling people "Christofascists" is just going to give fundamentals more motivation.
GET A CLUE: SO LONG AS YOU TRY TO FORCE YOUR RELIGION DOWN OTHER PEOPLE'S THROATS THEN YOU ARE CHRISTO-FASCISTS
DON'T LIKE IT? STOP BEING ONE
Get an education dimwit
Originally posted by Mongoose
You seem to think that everyone who voted for Bush or who has conservative viewpoints is an uneducated, rednecked, intolerant bigot.
You've demonstrated that this is true - you don't want us to think this then by all means PLEASE PROOVE US WRONG
The first step would be acknowledging the following FACTS
* The Duelfer Reprot States: Iraq had NO WMD, NO Link to Alqaeda
* Gays are people to - let them marry who they want to, it's not any of your business
* Craetionism belongs in Intro. To World Religions NOT SCIENCE CLASS
* A woman is supreme over her body
* "Under God"/"In God We Trust" has no business on/in government documents
* The United States was founded as a secular government (which is made QUITE CLEAR by the foudning fathers)
Originally posted by Mongoose
Pull your head out of your ass and take a look around. And, for the last time, quit your *****ing about the election!
Pull your head out of your ass and realize that you're the cause of my irritation
-
Kaz, whilst I agree with your opinion on this, might I suggest you take a few minutes to sit down, breathe deeply and calm down a bit?
You seem to somewhat wound up nowadays...........
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It's a one way street though.
what ignoramus told you this? Rush Limbaugh
Originally posted by Liberator
Congress, that is the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall not make or consider any potential law that establishes one religion above another.
how about the text of the actual first ammendment
Constitution of the United States
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
if you make a law purely based on person A's religion you stomp on person B's (who is not of A's religion) rights
Originally posted by Liberator
@bobb:
Freedom to me, is the right and ability to do anything I want so long as it doesn't adversly affect others without their participation or permission.
when you legislate your religion you infringe upon other's rights
when you try and stick "creation science" into science class you infringe upon other's rights
Originally posted by Liberator
@Kaz:
I understand now, you're irrational hatred of religion stems from you're fear of it.
ROTFL
irrational is not a word that is a valid adjective of me - i don't fear RELIGION - i understand it far better than any of it's practitioners
i'm filled with righteous rage at certain of it's practitioners (LIKE YOU) insisting that they get to legislate their religion
-
Yeah - while the degredation of American society is pretty funny, it's marred by the fact that you keep telling people to get an education... I mean, yours is in Computer science isn't it?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Kaz, whilst I agree with your opinion on this, might I suggest you take a few minutes to sit down, breathe deeply and calm down a bit?
i'm not going to calm down until the battle to save the US is over
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Yeah - while the degredation of American society is pretty funny, it's marred by the fact that you keep telling people to get an education... I mean, yours is in Computer science isn't it?
my "formal" education
1st thing you need to know is being skilled in legality is a MUST for any good computer scientist - and that includes being skilled in constitutional law
However being an atheist I was already skilled in constitutional law because of the long twilight struggle to defend my rights!
but excuse me for being extremely literate and having 8 years of formal debate expirience, having read philosophy widely, being a student of history, good at political science
engaged to a political scientist
and on top of all that - I CAN CITE SOURCES
-
Originally posted by Kazan
having 8 years of formal debate expirience,
Originally posted by Kazan
I CAN CITE SOURCES
Originally posted by Kazan
if you had two neurons you'd know to look up HR3799 on house.gov
WHICH I HAVE AND I'VE READ THE ENTIRE BLOODLY THING - and it's very clear SO HAVE THEY
GET A CLUE: SO LONG AS YOU TRY TO FORCE YOUR RELIGION DOWN OTHER PEOPLE'S THROATS THEN YOU ARE CHRISTO-FASCISTS
DON'T LIKE IT? STOP BEING ONE
Get an education dimwit
Originally posted by Kazan
Pull your head out of your ass and realize that you're the cause of my irritation
Damn man - I really want to go to one of your formal debates. They'd be so... not formal.
-
black wolf: find someone on here that could engage in one and a subject and i'll go into one
i've tried following the rules of formal debate, and being polite to the likes of mongoose and liberator - it has even less effect than screaming in their faces
they need to get the **** out of the US and go to some theocracy and be happy - not try to turn the US into a theocracy
-
don't worry, everyone grows up at some point.
-
rictor: libby's 26 .. i don't see him "Growing up" anytime soon - especially since we have 50' and 60' year olds in the government who act just like him!
-
How do you know I was reffering to him? :p :p
Each generation gets more and more progressive, so Bush the last chance for the right to really push through some of their more hardline agendas. In a few decades, those who tried to prohibit gay marriage will be looked upon the same way as those who tried to enforce segregation. Give it time Kaz, give it time.
-
ah.. you meant collectively -- yes i know
however, that future must be able to grow - which requires us to fight the right tooth and nail
-
this explains much (same discussion, on another board.. minus the dimwits)
Origionally by Vulva
What is this, nineteen fifty ****ing six?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm
In 1956, the nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto with "In God we Trust." The president signed the resolution into law on 1956-JUL-30. The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as is communism. The new motto was first used on paper money in 1957, when it was added to the one-dollar silver certificate. By 1966, "In God we Trust" was added to all paper money, from $1 to $100 denominations.
Let's all hop in the Packard, hit the car-hop, and then catch a Betty Grable talkie at the drive-in!
yeah.. "atheism=communism" RIGHT.. my arse [basically what vulva was saying]
-
Here's a better idea Kazan...YOU get out of OUR country, because we represent the actual principles that this country was founded upon, not whatever twisted agenda you seem to be promoting.
P.S. And WE need to grow up?! We're not the ones calling people CHRISTOFASCISTS in every single post we make.
-
Mongoose:
Oh yes - trying to write religion into the government - something which the founding fathers made sure didn't happen is "representing the actual principles this country was founded on"
Oh yes - telling certain members of society that they cannot enter into marriages with who they want: effectively making them second-class citizens is "representing the actual principles this country was founded on"
Oh yes - telling people "if you question the president you're unamerican" - something the founding fathers made sure you were allowed to do: and we're the first country to have the universal freedom of speech is "representing the actual principles this country was founded on"
Don't like being described as christofascist - then please by all means stop earning that description!
I would love for that description to no longer be valid, and I would stop using it if that happened.
-
You see! This is the sort of debate that should be going on in the Senate between Republic and Democratics. People who are actually passionate about what they believe.
It's not either of your belefs, as such, that are at fault, it is the people you trust to convert them into policy.
If there were a system of government that contained people as passionate as you two, and a way of finding common ground between them, I think we'd have it nailed :D
-
Except, flipside, that those two criteria seem to be mutually exclusive :rolleyes:
-
yeah often
i'll hold my righteous rage in bottle for a while and be polite to mongoose and liberator :D
-
Sell it on e-bay.
And then stand for election.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
...polite to mongoose and liberator :D
:blah:
-
I hope you all realize this is just another example of some of the silly crap Congress has to deal with. All kinds of strange bills get thrown to them, only to be thrown back out. I seem to recall a few years ago some senator suggesting a bill to ban marriage entirely since the current rules are discriminatory (in his opinion).
t'aint that big of a deal.
-
libby responds to my post in which i promise to be polite to him for a while - but ignores my refutation of his position
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Here's a better idea Kazan...YOU get out of OUR country, because we represent the actual principles that this country was founded upon, not whatever twisted agenda you seem to be promoting.
P.S. And WE need to grow up?! We're not the ones calling people CHRISTOFASCISTS in every single post we make.
Give me a starship and I'll gladly leave.
Along with a whole lot of "darn dung damned intellectshauls." :p
-
yeah.. we leftists and our "twisted agenda" of promoting that the government stay out of the bedroom, not tell people which religion to be, promoting free speech, yada yada -- all that jaz
-
Basically, promoting an agenda where anything that runs counter to your own is touted to be pure idiocy.
Kinda like what they say about you.
You're both ****ed.
-
*rolls eyes at ionia*
-
yeah. You may be touting such open-minded ideals as 'government staying out of the bedroom' and 'free speech', but heaven forbid someone wears a crucifix in your presence. End of the freakin' world.
We're not all gay-bashing racist Klansmen, you know. Not all of us.
-
I couldn't give a toss if someone wears a crucifix around me so I have to ask what the hell you're on about Ionia?
-
Ionia's right, unfortunately.
You, Kaz, amuse the hell out of me with your constant claims of theocracy and facism. Are you on crack? Without severe restructuring of the government, this is an impossiblity. That's why the government was set up the way it was.
More to the point, you remind me very, very much of those Kerry supporters who tried to convince us the draft was coming back if Bush got relected. That was absolute bull**** and everyone with enough neurons to form a synapse knew it. So is this. I am a Roman Catholic. I am a Republican. I don't want this. Neither does a majority of Congress, or a majority of the United States. Go find a real issue.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i'm not going to calm down until the battle to save the US is over
I'm sorry Kaz, but the even if your views / statements are the most concise, convincing and accurate in the world, you're still going to damage peoples view of their credibility by shouting and bawling (internet stylee) at them.
Like I said, I agree with you on this - I don't believe government can be fair without being secular. All I'm saying is, calm down a wee bit and people will be more inclined to listen to you in the long run. :)
-
I swear to Arlah this wasn't yet-another-attempt to razz Kaz. Fanaticism on both sides of the coin freaks and bugs the hell out of me. It doesn't take long before I become one of 'them' too. What I'm 'on' about is this continued bashing of all things buying into the concept of (insert deity here). Having faith doesn't make one stupid. I don't fall back on the God thing because I'm too 'weak' to think for myself.
"And yet, it still moves"
Like i said a few posts back. The bill that got this whole stupid thread started was another example of the stupid crap Congress is forced to deal with because "someone" decides to make an issue out of it. There are too many people on both sides who consider such a bill at best laughable and at worst dangerous.
If there's one thing that Republicans and Democrats can agree on it's that government has no business legislating spiritual morality.
Take my Grandfather. Decorated war hero, former president of a large bank chain out here, ran for the Senate, devout Republican, blah blah. Surprisingly, he didn't vote for George Bush. When asked why, he replied that "He crosses the line between Church and State too much. When you do that, you are one step closer to becoming Iran".
Like any group, the more you try to silence them the louder they get.
-
You'll never get anywhere in terms of legitimacy by claiming that your principles are the ones upon which the nation was really founded. What a country was founded on doesn't mean ****, because historical documents are forever at the mercy of those who are adept at fitting round pegs into square holes. It may take decades or centuries, but a society will always become whatever the strongest cause wants it to be.
Kazan, quite frankly, I think it's very often people with your steady anger that alter the direction of society, but the groove of dogmatism is a very easy one to get stuck in, and anything can become a dogma in and of itself.
Liberator, I am posing a question that is sincerely not meant to be antagonistic: Why do you feel that religion and morality must be connected? Morality is something that organizes society; it keeps peope from being perpetually at each other's throats, but religion isn't about society, is it? Quite honestly, I am an atheist not because it is what makes me happy but because it is what my reasoning leads me to, so I am familiar with the emotion of spiritual ecstasy, and I know that is a very personal matter. Isn't religion more essentially about the desire to feel a connection with the "ebb and flow" of all things than it is about what other people do? Shouldn't moral questions be left to a context in which we can all communicate?
-
Originally posted by ionia23
yeah. You may be touting such open-minded ideals as 'government staying out of the bedroom' and 'free speech', but heaven forbid someone wears a crucifix in your presence. End of the freakin' world.
We're not all gay-bashing racist Klansmen, you know. Not all of us.
contrary to your believe i have numerous christian friends - and i don't discuss religion with them regularily
of course they're not the type to try and force it on others - like libby and mongoose are
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
You, Kaz, amuse the hell out of me with your constant claims of theocracy and facism. Are you on crack? Without severe restructuring of the government, this is an impossiblity. That's why the government was set up the way it was.
keep telling yourself this
not all fascism looks like adolf
Originally posted by ngtm1r
More to the point, you remind me very, very much of those Kerry supporters who tried to convince us the draft was coming back if Bush got relected.
The ones that said "how else can bush repopulate the army?"
or the ones that recognize that we already have a back-door draft (ie people not being let off when they're scheduled.. like my brother was)
Originally posted by ngtm1r
That was absolute bull**** and everyone with enough neurons to form a synapse knew it.
no - that remains to be seen
Originally posted by ngtm1r
So is this. I am a Roman Catholic. I am a Republican. I don't want this.
then you better start listening to what bush is saying and what his congressional chronies are doing
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Neither does a majority of Congress, or a majority of the United States. Go find a real issue.
So i suppose things that are actually happening, and that it can be demonstrated that they're actually happening "isn't a real issue"
the fact that every human rights organization in the US is screaming about the current administration moving us tword theocracy isn't "a real issue"
wake up and smell the roses my friend
-
And you, Kazan, who also have done the same thing repeatedly in this very thread?
All of you, seriously. Go find a real issue. This is not one, and never will be. It'd never make it through Congress.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Surprisingly, he didn't vote for George Bush. When asked why, he replied that "He crosses the line between Church and State too much. When you do that, you are one step closer to becoming Iran"
upstanding citizen.. more republicans should be like him
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
And you, Kazan, who also have done the same thing repeatedly in this very thread?
All of you, seriously. Go find a real issue. This is not one, and never will be. It'd never make it through Congress.
this particular bill will not make it - you are correct
however this issue of religious infiltration of our government and the slow move tword theocratic fascism is a real one - that is demonstrably happening
-
And I say again: without severe, probably violent restructuring of the government, such an end result is also demonstrably impossible.
That is why the government was constructed the way it was. The US governmental system is remarkably good at maintaining the status quo in regards to itself. That is why it has proved so stable.
-
assert that all you want - it's not true ngtm1r
just because our government was setup to preclude the rise of fascism/etc as well as possible that doesn't mean it's immune
look into what fascism actually is, then look into the movement that is supporting bush, and bush's actions
go, look, very carefully
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
And I say again: without severe, probably violent restructuring of the government, such an end result is also demonstrably impossible.
That is why the government was constructed the way it was. The US governmental system is remarkably good at maintaining the status quo in regards to itself. That is why it has proved so stable.
The nature of totalitarianism is such that it slips in unnoticed. Who was it that said 'the price of freedom is eternal vigilence"? Well, this is when you need to stay vigilent.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
All of you, seriously. Go find a real issue. This is not one, and never will be. It'd never make it through Congress.
You're missing the point. Regardless of whether this makes it through congress or not It should never have even been proposed!
-
Exactly, IMO.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You're missing the point. Regardless of whether this makes it through congress or not It should never have even been proposed!
Whether or not it should or should not have been proposed isn't the problem. Actually, the fact that it was proposed in the first place isn't a problem either.
And therein lies the great dilemna in 'free speech'. You can say, think, and propose pretty much anything you want to. Whether it is agreed with, resisted, argued, acted upon, totally different matter.
Someone could try to take to the floor a constitutional amendment overturning the right of blacks to vote if they wanted to. Wouldn't get very far, but they could certainly try.
Think of it as a balance: one group can propose a federal law allowing gay marriage. by that same token, another group can propose making the practice of homosexuality a federal, capital offense. Sure, dealing with the Bill O'Reillys and Pat Buchannans of the world is a royal pain in the ass, but if the law covers them then you have nothing to worry about.
That is...until they become the majority.
-
/me notices ionia ignoring my post that challenges her assumptions about me
-
just curious, do we have anyone on hlp who is or will be planning to make a career as a politician?
-
not as far as i know
-
Originally posted by Kazan
assert that all you want - it's not true ngtm1r
just because our government was setup to preclude the rise of fascism/etc as well as possible that doesn't mean it's immune
look into what fascism actually is, then look into the movement that is supporting bush, and bush's actions
go, look, very carefully
I am. Show me the SA or Ernest Rohm and I might start believing you. Until then, shut up.
All facist nations, and most theocracies, arise because of governmental instabilty and widespread unhappiness with the current form of government. The US government is decidely stable, and the majority of the people living here are decidely happy with it as it is. This was not true of Germany in the 1920s and 1939s. Nor so for Italy. Or more recently, Iran.
In fact, the only instabilty as of now that in theory could cause the overthrow of the US government is from those on the left side of the aisle. Unless you intend to set up a theocracy or facist government, you simply cannot make the case.
Facism does not arrive silently in the night. It comes stomping in with all the silent grace of a gutshot elephant. Look at Hitler's rise to power, or that of Mussolini. They gave their people plenty of warning about what was coming. So did Khomenini.
Democracies since the birth of Christ have come in two main types: either they last less then a decade or they last forever. Once entrenched, the democratic mindset is not easily dislodged. While exceptionally vunerable it is formative stages, a democracy that survives those has much better longevity prospects then any other form of government. It takes an outside force, an invasion, to upset a long-standing democracy.
What Caeser did to the Roman Republic is no longer possible today. People see too much. People know too much. Mass media ensures that. And unless you are willing to compare the exceptional man that Caeser was to George W. Bush, and the comparison is favorable for Bush, your case falls apart.
I believe I've found the liberal equivalent of a survivalist militaman.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
just curious, do we have anyone on hlp who is or will be planning to make a career as a politician?
Who lies mos & bestt?
-
ngtm1r: you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about
"Fascism does not arrive silently in the night" tips anyone wary off to the that fact [ie the fact that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about]
it's well passed the silent stage now btw
-
US culture war thickens.....
-
[q]just curious, do we have anyone on hlp who is or will be planning to make a career as a politician?[/q]
Until I left Highschool I was. Then apathy and reality set in and I realized it's really not gonna happen - people don't want the truth, they want something they can put to the back of their minds as they go get pished after the latest football game.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Until I left Highschool I was. Then apathy and reality set in and I realized it's really not gonna happen - people don't want the truth, they want something they can put to the back of their minds as they go get pished after the latest football game. [/B]
Sounds about right, unfortunately.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
All facist nations, and most theocracies, arise because of governmental instabilty and widespread unhappiness with the current form of government. The US government is decidely stable, and the majority of the people living here are decidely happy with it as it is. This was not true of Germany in the 1920s and 1939s. Nor so for Italy. Or more recently, Iran.
(...)
Facism does not arrive silently in the night. It comes stomping in with all the silent grace of a gutshot elephant. Look at Hitler's rise to power, or that of Mussolini. They gave their people plenty of warning about what was coming. So did Khomenini.
(...)
What Caeser did to the Roman Republic is no longer possible today.
Yeah... look at what happened with António de Oliveira Salazar! Oh wait... :wtf:
EDIT: Actually, now that I think of it, Bush sounds a lot like Salazar... except Salazar had better economic policies...
-
The villan who twirls his moustache is easily spotted... but those who come bearing notions of justice and self assumed good will are truly dangerous.
-
*smiles at vyper*
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Whether or not it should or should not have been proposed isn't the problem. Actually, the fact that it was proposed in the first place isn't a problem either.
And therein lies the great dilemna in 'free speech'. You can say, think, and propose pretty much anything you want to. Whether it is agreed with, resisted, argued, acted upon, totally different matter.
Someone could try to take to the floor a constitutional amendment overturning the right of blacks to vote if they wanted to. Wouldn't get very far, but they could certainly try.
Think of it as a balance: one group can propose a federal law allowing gay marriage. by that same token, another group can propose making the practice of homosexuality a federal, capital offense. Sure, dealing with the Bill O'Reillys and Pat Buchannans of the world is a royal pain in the ass, but if the law covers them then you have nothing to worry about.
That is...until they become the majority.
Still missing the point. Of course freedom of speech allows them to propose whatever laws they want. But did they run for election with this in their manifesto? I think not.
If you run for election claiming you're going to do something like this then you can propose it all you like. But the fact remains that many of the people who voted for them wouldn't have done so had they known that this was coming.
That's why they shouldn't be allowed to get away with backing this crap. They should be hounded out of office by public opinion in the same way as if they had proposed a return to slavery. That's why it's a big issue. Nothing to do with whether it passes or not. The very fact that they proposed it should end their careers. If we simply sweep it under the carpet cause it won't pass then we forget the fact that these idiots tried to pass a law that even the majority of republicans on this board hate.