[Kazan]

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

[Bobboau]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[Rictor]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[Rictor]

from what I remember, and don't hold me on this, its 60% methodist, 20% catholic and 2 or 3% other Chrisitian.

[Kazan]

we'll got news for you: that's very inaccurate

[StratComm]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[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.

[Bobboau]

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"

[Mongoose]

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!

[Bobboau]

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?

[StratComm]

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.

[Liberator]

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.

[Ace]

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.

[Setekh]

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.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]All you people who voted Bush: I told you so.
[/color]

[aldo_14]

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 (see midway down in particular)

[vyper]

[q]Stop worrying about America becoming a theocracy, when it really happens we'll actually see some real justice[/q]

If you're Christian...