In america? Never gonna happen.



------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

You realize that as long as people populate a government, there will be no absence of personal religious ideals in government, right?

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

Believe it or not, some people are capable of keeping their religious beliefs to themselves.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

Why is everybody saying that the economy is in the toilet? If we really were in the toilet, we would know for sure. We're just not as strong as we were say the late 90s. These things happen. Economies ebb and flow esp. with our capitalist way of life.

------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

Personal values dictate religious beliefs, and/or vice versa. Personal values dictate how you'll vote.

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

You are so right. Republicans merely borrow allot of Biblical principals. Quite a few more than the Democrats go by. That's why most Christians are Republicans. How ever, Republicans are becoming less and less conservative. The day a Republican presidential candidate goes is pro-abortion is the day that the Republicans loose my vote. I'll have to go to less known but more conservative party. The thing about conservatism is that it (usually) follows Biblical principals, where Liberalism does not. I will never vote liberal because their beliefs are so far from Biblical principals. I think that every Christian should study the party they will vote for to see which party has the more Biblical stand point. Now granted, the Republicans aren’t nearly as good as I’d like but I think that they are far better than the Democrats.

You're wrong. Republicans want government regulation of social issues and not business (hey, let's face it, Republican usually means fat rich white guys [ex. Cheney]). Republicans are against striking down sodomy laws and are for enacting anti-gay legislation. If telling you who you can and can not love is not an intrusion on the lives of citizens then I dont know what is.

Both parties have extremist idealists that believe their supramoralities should be enforced on the rest of humanity. Examples: The Federal Defense of Marriage Act...

Whatever your political ideology, you have to appreciate the balance that the Democrats and Republicans have. I still wouldnt mind having a tri-party or more political system though.



Um... wrong. Religion can and does affect the government. Bush is all about it. God told him it was ok to invade Iraq, remember? The only thing the government is actually barred from doing in the Constitution is establishing a national church or religion. This is why it's called the Establishment clause. Things like school prayer (i.e. mandatory prayer led by paid public officials) are seen as establishing a religion, which is it's not allowed. I know most Chrisitians hate this, but if you were a Hindu led in prayer to Jesus you'd understand.

------------------
free mp3 ~Jump - Young America

new album Between the Dim and the Dark available now

Where on earth did you hear that?

Perhaps all politicians should be atheists.

Perhaps all politicians should be [group I agree with].

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

Let's not get carried away now. Democrat generally means fat rich guys as well. John Kerry and John Edwards are VERY well off, by the way.



Have patience. Gay marriage continues to be a contraversial subject. Believe it or not, there are still studies being done on whether or not homosexuality is physiological. I think people are jumping to conclusions on both sides of the issue and although I can understand the urgency of some...if they've waited this long, they can wait a little longer. Women and blacks waited for what must have seemed an eternity.



I don't recall any Republicans or Democrats telling people who they can or cannot love. Mind posting some links, I'm interested in reading what the idiot who stated such a thing has to say? If one believes that gays shouldn't be married, to assume that the person also believes that gays shouldn't be allowed to love one another is a bit of a leap. I've yet to see a law that states that a person can only love people of the opposite sex.

I'm tempted to believe that you were being sarcastic with your comments, so I apologize if I misunderstood.



I'm tempted time and time again to vote for the leading 3rd party just to help them acheive their 5%.



I believe in the existence of at least one god, and although I don't belong to any organized religion, I don't find being led in a prayer to "Jesus" offensive at all. I understand the points that both sides of the issue are making, but things work out fine the way they are now, if you ask me.

------------------
www.MentatMM.com (status = down :/)
Napalm Death Squad (status = alpha)

ARGH mort-hog stole my thunder, oh well it stood out a mile...


Haha nice try getting out of that one, all of a sudden separation of church and state isn't all that important when it would mean Firefox & co running government eh?

What? Getting out of what? My point is that people who say "all people should/shouldn't be [insert group]," are declaring their willingness to align themselves with one partisan group and to declare that group the absolute best.

I have absolutely no problem with atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Pagans, Hindus, or whatever religious affiliations exist being in our government, as long there exists a separation of church. I agree with the "no prayer" ruling, but disagree with the removal of the Ten Commandments ruling when a copy of the Quran sits in an NYPD precinct -- I expect fair treatment in such respects. Let the Quran stay there, and let the Ten Commandments stay where they were.

However, separation of church and state, as defined by the Constitution, does not include separation of church and politician, nor should anyone with half a brain expect it to. Each person has beliefs pertaining to religion, atheists and agnostics included, and, were I to vote for them, I would expect them to adhere to those beliefs. Or do you prefer your politicians to say one thing and do another?

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited August 31, 2004).]

Heh. http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentintid=42916

Ictus, you're Christian? I could've sworn at some point you said you were athiest.

I don't recall a Koran in an NYPD precint.. linkee? Well anyhow... my thoughts on having religious items on state property kind of go like this:

It's alright to put them in public areas, like parks and such, where people can come and go as they please. Written text preaching a religion might be pushing it, but symbols and the like are OK. My problem is with that Judge in Alabama who put the Ten Commandments in a COURTHOUSE. The difference between a courthouse and public park is that people are FORCED to go to a courthouse, whereareas they have every right not to visit a park.

Additionally, specifically in the case of a courthouse, having a tablet of Christian laws there would seemingly be very offensive to me, especially if I was of another religion. It's kind of like saying, "this courthouse, and those prosecuted within it, are under CHRISTIAN LAW," because you have a big stone thing listing it right at the entrance of the courtroom. And if anybody feels that others should be prosecuted under the laws of a religion, then they shouldn't be a judge at all...

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/041127.htm



And, yet, that's all in your head, unless that was the phrase chiseled into the stone on the front of the courthouse. Were I to walk into a New York precinct with the Koran on display, I wouldn't worry about being arrested for not being a follower of Islam.

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited August 31, 2004).]

Well yes, I suppose it is all in my head. But having a set of laws there certainly IMPLIES that the courthouse and/or judges there endorse and quite possibly follow those laws in their rulings, doesn't it? I mean, the language is pretty straightforward and commanding. "Thou Shall Not..." telling any person walking in, directly, what they CAN NOT do--even though it's a religious moral law, not the laws of the court.

------------------
SPOOKY TACO FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe the politicans, but certainly not the people they represent. I would say the Republican Party is far more appealing to the rich.. infact I think its pretty undeniable. This is obviously how the GOP is associated with greed.

------------------
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we.
President George W. Bush . 2000-2004

Ya, that was a rant. But to see my point on the Republican agenda against homosexuality, dont separate the two quotes you took out. Look at it as one whole and it'll give you a sense of where I'm coming from better.

Argh, I cant find the article but I remember Bush saying that "God is on our side" in regards to Iraq.

I'm trying not to let this turn into a debate, or a flame, just a discussion.

------------------
free mp3 ~Jump - Young America

new album Between the Dim and the Dark available now

My question to you is this: do you find the presence of the Quran in the PD equally wrong?

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

Article? He keeps saying it in nearly every speech!

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

Yes, I do. I don't think we should have religious preaching (which would be the Koran and Ten Commandments, or anything else with text) in an area of public property where people are FORCED to go. Religious symbols are fine, as are pictures and I guess if their was a Bible or Koran that was closed (as in, it was just the book lying on a pedestal, vs. a tablet or some text blown up and put on a wall as a poster)

It's kind of the same with religion in general... Preaching it, voicing your beliefs is fine, up to the extent that you are not FORCING it upon others.

That doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

Mind if i play Devil's advocate? I heard that separation of church and state really means that the govt can't create a state-sponsored church or collect taxes from religious organizations. it is NOT meant as an excuse to completely purge all mention of religion/God from the govt.

We know this b/c the founding fathers were very literate and each wrote extensively about their views. If such drastic separation was their original intent, do you think they would have mentioned it in detail in their writings?

------------------
I have found that you can transform your character solely by the power of belief: as you believe yourself to be, so you shall become over time.

[This message has been edited by Pagewizard_YKS (edited August 31, 2004).]

I don't see what's wrong with that. the ten Commandments are some of the oldest and most famous laws in human civilization, regardless of what you believe their origins to be. In the courthouse, they served as a SYMBOL of law, not an advocation of Christianity.

Besides, if people were offended, they could just walk by and not look at it. It wasn't like people were foced to accept it, it was just a symbol. Besides, the ten commanments are more closely related to Judiasm than they are to Christianity b/c they were observed by the ancient Hebrews long before they were observed by Christians. One could even make the argument that removing the ten commandments was bordering on being anti-semetic.


------------------
I have found that you can transform your character solely by the power of belief: as you believe yourself to be, so you shall become over time.

[This message has been edited by Pagewizard_YKS (edited August 31, 2004).]

Boy am I not with it today or what. I had a reply to Pagewizard's 2nd post...but I overlooked stuff that would have made me a dunce.

------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

[This message has been edited by Gandalf1120 (edited August 31, 2004).]

I don't have any statistics on the subject available, and don't really have the time to research the subject, but seeing how the last presidential election was virtually 50/50, I would speculate that there is a great deal of variety in status amongst the constituents of each party. I could think of a thousand excuses for the wealthy to vote Republican, and I'm not even a Republican, and greed would only be one of them. A Republican might argue that the wealthy are statistically of higher education and have a better grasp of economics. This could mean that they're greedy and want more, or that Bush's economic policies are superior to that of Kerry's, in the mind of the educated.

I'm an independent though, and don't really want to defend Republicans or Democrats. If I had to describe myself, I'd probably be an independent, liberal-conservative...lol.



Not to mention, the only other decent alternative was Hammurabi's Code of Laws, and damn that would have been some serious chiseling!



------------------
www.MentatMM.com (status = down :/)
Napalm Death Squad (status = alpha)

Even if you're not a Republican, you have to watch the convention just for Arnold.
"America must be fierce to terminate terrorism!"
"Economist girly men!"

You know I'm for giving extra money to the poor just as much as the next man. But we don't have extra money. We can't continue this deficit spending. We are going to be in deep trouble if we don't stop it right now.

Plus, I don't believe it's right to *force* people to give to the poor. Sure it's good to give it to the poor and most rich people do it as a charity anyway, but force them to do it is the same as stealing it from them. It's theirs and it may not be equal, but it's theirs. Plus some rich people may not want to give to the charities that the government wants to. They may for ethical or personal reasons want to give it to a different charity. The bottom line is, they shouldn’t be taxed a greater percentage because they have more. They have more because they worked for it and they have a right to expect to keep it. It not greed, they just want to keep the same percentage as every one else. Giving to the poor is a very good thing but it’s wrong to force others to do it.

I don't see how it could be anti-semetic, but for the most part, I agree with you; The Ten Commandments are the foundation of any just government. Although the ones involving God are irelivent in court, who could disagree that [just] governments, the their most basic level, protect people from stealing and killing?

Perhaps not everyone beileves in the Ten Commandments as a doctrine, but if you don't beileve in [most of] what the words mean, then you won't be in the courthouse for very long anyway if there's enough evidence against you.

------------------
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we.
President George W. Bush . 2000-2004

[This message has been edited by Eversor (edited August 31, 2004).]

It doesn't matter what the "founding fathers" intended.

The separation of church and state is ultimately necessary in modern society, so not to discriminate against any one group.



The difference is, though, that atheism is not a 'religious affiliation'. Atheism is a lack of religious affiliation. Atheism is not a 'uniting factor' in any way.
If a politician were atheist, he would have no bias either way towards any particular viewpoint, and rule out of common sense indiscriminately.

That was a great speech. He can be corny at times, but since the goal of the DNC/RNC's seem to be a HS-esque pep rally mentality, he was very effective. As an independent, I must admit that the DNC was excruciating. It seems that a Kerry vote is simply a vote against Bush. Kerry has yet to offer any real substance to his campaign. I'm looking forward to the debates.



Indeed. I believe that forcing people to pay taxes on programs that they don't see as vital, is wrong. For instance, the argument could be made (although I disagree) that space program is a waste of time. People should have options when it comes to what their money goes to. Let's face it, some people don't want to help anyone, and maybe that should be their right.



I wouldn't go as far as to say that it doesn't matter, but things do indeed change, and sadly, many times it's for the worst.



Incorrect. There is a plethra of athiest groups, and whether you like it or not, they sometimes do have an agenda. Athiesm can indeed be a uniting factor, just ask those who truly follow the teachings of Buddha. People can, have, and do, unite under just about any cause, and athiesm can be considered a cause.



I don't mean to be rude, I truly don't, but your logic is flawed as far as athiesm is concerned. I once had a friend tell me that his clothing style wasn't a style at all, but a lack of style. I laughed and told him that even the lack of style is a style. There are things that can't be avoided in this world, and bias is one of them, my friend.

I'm tempted to start a logic debate over the existence of at least one creator, but I fear this wouldn't be the time or place.




------------------
www.MentatMM.com (status = down :/)
Napalm Death Squad (status = alpha)

So an atheist has no personal preferences in way, shape, or form? He/she serves completely out of a will to benefit the people he/she represents?

Right. And the Pope is a cleric of Islam.

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

how is it discriminatory to have the ten commandments posted? If you don't like it, don't even look at it. Problem solved. Sure, it may piss you off, but does it really infringe on any of your actual rights or keep you from getting legitimate and fair due process in that courthouse?


I feel the ten commandments in that courthouse were symbolic speech of the judge, since they were obviously put there to represent law as a whole. The judge had his free speech rights infringed upon.

------------------
I have found that you can transform your character solely by the power of belief: as you believe yourself to be, so you shall become over time.

[This message has been edited by Pagewizard_YKS (edited September 01, 2004).]

The difference is, atheist's aren't a "religious group" as such, they're just people who aren't affiliated to any other group. They don't go to meetings on any particular day of the week, they don't hold any particular symbols special, they don't believe there should be religious preference to any one religious group over another.

Other than your complaints which seem to be more against politicians in general, I don't see where atheists could have a conflict of interest in regards to the separation of church and state, considering they're religiously neutral.

Some are. Some want to see religion completely removed. My point is, to say that "all politicans should be [group]" says that you believe that a member of that group would be better suited for the position than a member of any other group. I disagree with this -- a theistic politician can be just as fair with respect to religion as an atheistic politician.

Simply being an atheist doesn't make a person a better politician.



Not any religious group, no, but that doesn't mean that all atheist politicians aren't looking out for the interests of a group. To say that no atheist is "affiliated with any other group" is a flat-out false generalization. Many may not, yes, but many may be affiliated with another group.

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited September 01, 2004).]

Someone should kidnap the GOP leadership and make them attend Government and Civics classes.

------------------
free mp3 ~Jump - Young America

new album Between the Dim and the Dark available now

I think I conceeded in a previous debate that Buddhism is a religion, so Buddhists are not atheists. For more information, see Sine Nomen.



Why not? What they said and did has no relevance at all to modern society.
I certainly wouldn't want old crazy George III to rule England again.


No, I'm not saying that simply being atheist makes you a good politican, there are lots of things you need to be and do and do well to be a good politican. But being an atheist certainly helps.
He would have no conflict of interest when it came to issues concerning religion. For example, Bush's War on Terror has really only been against foreign Muslim radicals, but there have been domestic Christian radicals within the United States for decades.
The US went out of their way to arrest Abu Hamza from the Finnsbury Park Mosque, but they have done nothing about Tom Metzger, the leader of the "White Aryan Resistance". In 1980 he won the Democratic Primary standing as a Klu Klux Clan member. Two years later he gathered 75,000 votes for U.S. Senate in 1982. He promotes fundementalist Christianity, and preaches violence against any non-caucasion race, especially negros.

Funny how he can do that, but Abu Hamza can't promote and glorify suicide bombings against the United States, in another country.

Why isn't Dubya cracking down on these supremacist 'terrorists'?
Perhaps because they're Christian.

Oh wait, no, it's "freedom of speech". Funny how radical Muslims don't get "freedom of speech".

...or it could be that these groups either a) have not committed actual crimes or b) there exists insufficient evidence to bring them to trial.

Edit: Abu Hamza was apparently arrested on suspicion of being involved with the "commission, preparation, and instigation" of terrorist activities. Furthermore, it was British authorities who nabbed him on British soil, not American.

Read it here.

------------------
<ubuu> does hitler have a last name?
<jipe> .. yes, Ubuu, we're racist commy nazi jews, and we hate male pattern baldness
<Professor`K> Sorry, but half-way through your logic, my head exploded

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited September 01, 2004).]

There are many different types of Buddhists. I was referring to those Buddhists who are athiest (Buddha himself claimed that he wasn't a god, and was an athiest himself). There has always been Buddhist Athiests who consider the teachings of Buddha as a philosophy, not a religion. My statement wasn't to dispute whether or not Buddhism was a religion, only that it is athiestic to many people, therefore proving that athiests can sometimes belong to a potentially biased group, as well as a so-called religion/philosophy. This in itself means absolutely nothing, I was merely trying to prove a point.



You can hardly compare our founding fathers with a tyrant. As far as religion goes, many people (including Dr. Abercrombie) considered George Washington to be a Deist. Thomas Paine states in "The Age of Reason" that "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." Benjamin Franklin once stated that he too was a Deist. I could go on all day, but I will leave you with an interesting quote by John Adams.



Our founding fathers were great thinkers and their words and principles are as relevant today as they were then. I don't really see why anyone would say otherwise.

Back to the original subject...it seems that the Kindegarten Cop himself was the life of the RNC and that everything afterwards only puts me to sleep. :/

------------------
www.MentatMM.com (status = down :/)
Napalm Death Squad (status = alpha)

[This message has been edited by MentatMM (edited September 01, 2004).]

That was never what was implied, only that atheists could be expected to remain neutral in regards to the separation of church and state, not that your average atheist is some kind of wonder-politician.