Hmm... Evad is wise. I propose we make him king.

I wonder what the founding fathers would think of our political correctness. Obviously they had different ideas of seperation of church and state then we do today. They'd probably be shocked to see things like this.

I'm sorry, but no. Just no. Being conservative and forcing your views on someone else do not go hand in had. And liberals aren't always open minded either.

They didn't have any ideas on the separation of church and state.
In them days, the word 'religion' was generally used how we might use 'denomination'. The founding fathers accepting that the state should not favour Catholics or Protestants, but for the state to be Christian was never questioned. It was always going to be a Christian state.

Well, webster disagrees with you.

It's just that people misuse the terms liberal and conservative to mean political left and right.

Bah. I'm not even gonna bother arguing with you people. I gave that up ages ago.

I guess if you're talking dictionary definition of the words. Still, conservative doesn't really mean "forcing views on others" as much as "holding to a traditional view."

It doesn't nessessarily mean forcing your views on others, but what I meant is that if someone is forcing their views on others, than they certainly can't be a liberal by the real definition of the word, because a liberal would be accepting of the other person's views.

right n. - The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called right wing.

left n. - The people and groups who advocate liberal, often radical measures to effect change in the established order, especially in politics, usually to achieve the equality, freedom, and well-being of the common citizens of a state. Also called left wing.

[url]www.dictionary.com[/url]

Language changes over time. Electrical Engineers were pretty pissy about the word 'bandwidth' being used as a synonym for 'data rate', but they got over it. You should do yourself a favor and join the 21st Century, where bandwidth = data rate and liberal = left wing.

All right wing might be conservative, but that doesn't make all conservatives right wing.

Avenger, I think the confusion stems from what some people call "close-mindedness". In my opinion, there are as many conservatives who are close-minded as there are liberals. However, some people take open-minded to mean that you agree with certain traditional left viewpoints, like being more amicable to gays and things of that nature.

Liberals may be just as unwilling to change their mind on the subject of gays as conservatives, but the fact that they hold the left viewpoints is what some would deem as "open-minded".

I demand that the word "Christmas" be outlawed. It obviously has "Christ" in it.

Political parties have no special mandate to follow the dictionary defintion of whatever they are called. I thought this was common sense.

And don't confuse nouns and adjectives.

LOL EVAD 4 KING ROFL KTHXBYE!!!!!!11

What... I thought the main language here was English... what on earth was that?

dude, that just shows how they appeal to the stupid.

hamburgers were named after the place called hamburg.

/me is glad that the RSPCA here is recognised as the aurthority on wether something is crulety or abuse and not some exremeist anmial rights group.

just look at how the PETA wants to get australian wool products banned just because we export live sheep. they dont even care if the wool buisness goes out of buisness (seeing as that is a big buisness here, it would cause australia to go into a financial crisis and possibly have ripple effects on other nations), they just want to fulfil their vendetta.

Wow...creepy.

Maybe you hadn't noticed America's rapid turn toward liberalism in the 70's.

Did I ever say I was?

Hardly. Science is mandatory education.

So the president ends with a statement of his belief. The president does not have absolute control of the county by quite a ways.

How is ESP a religion?

And if I read in-between the lines correctly here, I apparently support ignorance.


It's not that I think religion is being stamped out. It's just that it's being stamped out from open publicity.

Contrary to popular belief, America was not founded on Christianity. Some of the founding fathers were actually Deists. And I seem to recall a proclamation of some sort issued not to long after America's government began to form that officially denied America being founded on Christianity. I'll try to find more about it if anyone's interested.

Who cares? Read the sermon on the mount.

Um religion will always be in the public eye... it always has been it always will be... the fall of religion itself will be because of the public eye.

*stabs the public's eye*

I know Jefferson was a deist, but I'm not sure about the others. What evidence do you have to support this?

I agree..very well put.

I always thought that "seperation of church and state" meant that the government didn't force any religion on its citizens. I didn't think it meant that the government should suppress any mention of religion whatsoever. Stupid human race. If there's a God, he's banging his head on his desk now.

Actually, the section of the first amendment covering religion had/has two purposes. The first was to prevent government discrimination based on religion. The second was that government could not hide behind a veil of religion. The country had just seperated from england, where traditionally the king had "divine right" to rule. That is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid, a government that uses religion as a reason or an excuse to create policy.

As for the teacher, teachers are extremely hard to fire. Teachers in most states, including California, are required to belong to a teachers union, which are usually extremely influential in district policy. The teacher in question certainly wasn't fired by a single person. It was at the very least approved by the board of education, and the evidence for the dismissal would have to be extremely compelling, or the union would get invloved.

The issue isn't what the teacher believes or even that the people who fired the teacher are anti-christian. It is a basic right that the teacher, the school administration, and the students can believe whatever they want. HOWEVER, the teacher can not promote or favor one religion over any other in the classroom. The teacher is a government worker and for that teacher to focus on christianity beyond its historical significance (which may or may not have happened in this case) in the classroom
is philosophically the same as government favoring christianity over every other religion.

As for the pledge, it is federal law that students are not required to recite the pledge. I was a geek in school, I always felt left out and was sometimes picked on because I was different. Do we really want to single out a group of kids as different every time the class stands to recite the pledge? I personally have no trouble saying the pledge, but the thought that through this act I might somehow be causing somebody to be ridiculed or ostrasized for standing up for what they believe is repulsive and completely un-american.

On a scale of one to ten, how much does that matter.





'nuff said.



Yep, as long as it doesn't question the little belief systems in people's heads, belief systems that encourage them to file complaints and law suits across the US, against science. I don't think court has to accept every case, if it's absolutely irrational. Sad thing is that they do accept fundies lashing out, and even sadder is that they're winning. If you ask me, government is actually way to tolerant/supporting of religion.

Science as of now in the US is actually being pushed back by this irrationality.



Seriously, if a politician was running for a certain office, and he publicly told the media he was an atheist, how much chance do you give him to win? Believe it or not man, but being atheist is a handicap in politics, and definitely in the US. How many atheist presidents have you had?

Accept it man, you said something about government supressing religion, but the two are insanely intertwined, and I dare propose a very positive correlation between the two. You can't even go to war anymore without calling your enemy the axis of evil. Strangely, when the opposite side does the exact same, you blame it on irrationality on his part.



Maybe not support, but at least accept.

Actually the god that they mention in America's history is not to be confused with God of the Jew's and Christians. It is little known fact that it is the Freemason god, hence the "All Knowing Eye" on the pyramid on your US dollar, Jabulon/Gatu is the name that the Freemason's has givin god, Ja- Jahovah, Bul- Baal and On- Onsiris/Osiris meaning that it was an adaptable god to any religion. George Washington has also been known to be a Freemason aswell.

Anyway, the point is that all because "In god we trust" was mentioned in the decleration of independance shouldn't mean that they should ban the historical document, I am frustrated with all this political correctness that has a captive hold on our society, it will soon escillate(sp?) out of control and entice more hatered umong our countries.

/steps down from his soap box and waits for the rotten tomatos

-Cheers

A_C_1