[aldo_14]

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.

[vyper]

I know Bush gets carried away but you can't say Jesus will be in charge...

[aldo_14]

I took the meaning to be that Bush would be smote were he to turn the US into a theocracy.

[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....

[karajorma]

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

[aldo_14]

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*

[Kazan]

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

[Rictor]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[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?

 You seem to somewhat wound up nowadays...........

[Kazan]

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

[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?

[Kazan]

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

[Kazan]

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

[Black Wolf]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[Rictor]

don't worry, everyone grows up at some point.

[Kazan]

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!

[Rictor]

How do you know I was reffering to him?

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.

[Kazan]

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