there's gore, who wouldn't have been so bad except he chose Leibermann to be his running mate, censorship boy himself, this guy has been trying to remove violence from games and movies since about 96.

truthfully Nader is probably the best choice, he may have his problems too, but he's definatly the lesser of the evils by a long shot.

I'm voteing for him

This is good.

Unfortunately, we all know he has not a chance in hell of winning.

Gore!

anyway, about the lieberman thing. sure, hes an ass, however, he has pledged to stand united with gore on ALL issues, which means he wont be whining his ass off. thats why you should vote gore. get a jew in office. granted, hes not a good example for jews, cause conservatives suck, but hes still a jew, and thats enough to earn my vote. if buchanan had a jewish woman as his vice, hed actually get my vote, even though i hate buchanan and all his whining. so yeah, thats where i stand....

and dont worry about the censorship, if they censor it too much(like anything at all) you know the ACLU will be all over their asses...

I think the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith raised the best criticism of Lieberman: atheists "should not be made to feel inferior, or left out of the political process." This quote came from a letter in which the ADL attacked the overt religious influences in Lieberman's politics. Remember, this country was founded on the seperation of church and state. That is the cornerstone of our democracy, and that is why we are here, typing on this BB today.

I may vote for Gore/Lieberman...but not if that means succumbing my right to watch violence because of other's religion in my legislation. Know what I mean?

"...or is this a one party state masquerading as a two party state? The democrats are on the inside what the republicans are on the outside."

Join the green wedge!

ok, if im sposed to be all about separation of church and state, why is it that only christian/catholic derivatives have held president/vp up until now? that such bs, i want recognition of jewish heritage dammit.

------------------
When my flying days are over, and my death has come to pass
I hope they bury me upside down, so the whole damn world can kiss my ass

no, this november i'm voting for someone who won't be lying when he says he will "uphold and defend the constitution of the united states of america."

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

quote:

---

Originally posted by j0eSmith:
Thank the gods I live in Canada.
We actully have a couple good choices for the next election

---

Who's that?

Oh - and who were the two american politians I saw on TV calling some reporter an asshole?

[This message has been edited by Happyfish (edited September 15, 2000).]

If you read the paper a few days ago, you probably noticed headlines proclaiming a "Culture of Carnage." Come to think of it, I think cr0bar mentioned it on the front page news the other day. Basically, Senator Joe Lieberman came down on the media and entertainment industry for openly marketing violence and sex to American youth. But don't let this dissuade you from voting Democrat on November's ticket - Dick Cheney's wife is on the moral crusade as well.

Sure, they just want children to avoid exposure to games like Halo and UT, but think about how this will affect the rest of us! The goal of the crusade is to cripple the gaming and entertainment industries - to knock out their right to free speech and expression...to hinder us from enjoying the stress-releiving satisfaction of blowing your buddy's head off in a fine afternoon game of Half-life. You can't not market to children and still openly market to adults.

Look's like were fucked either way, unless we vote for Nader...but then again...I'm not too sure about ol' Ralph.

and about the first ammendment thing, like i said, if they do anything really bad, the ACLU will be all over their asses in about 2 seconds...

the key words in the 'meth truth' section being that they can enter a home and confiscate any computer that "might" contain a recipie for meth.
< http://www.house.gov/gekas/bankruptcy/hr833.htm
> < http://www.house.gov/gekas/bankruptcy/hr833.htm
>

good luck wading through the bankruptcy one, i couldn't find any site that just explains it in plain english.

sithiee: i think more gun restrictions are a horrible idea and that "smart-trigger" stuff is crap. did you know that you can fire a gun with a trigger lock on it by pulling back the trigger lock?

the world has shown by example that stricter laws and more registration only leads to confiscation. it happened in germany. it happened in england. it happened in australia. it happened in canada. and i'll be damned if it's going to happen here.

it is not the government's duty to protect people from their own stupidity. why on earth would anyone think that more gun control will lower crime? the government doesn't even enforce the laws it already has! when i see some politician get on tv and say that thanks to the instant background check, 500,000 people were turned away from buying a gun because of a criminal record, i wonder why there weren't 500,000 prosecutions. it IS already a felony for anyone with a criminal record to purchase or attempt to purchase a firearm. it's also a felony to LIE on the 2 affidavits that it's necessary to fill out and sign. the bottom part, where you sign the forms, says that you are attesting that all of your above answers are true UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.

i haven't seen gun control do one damn bit of good yet in this country, and i seriously doubt that any more of it is going to fix things.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

[This message has been edited by kuru (edited September 16, 2000).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrh1406:
I've had to deal with Sen. leibermann being my representative for almost 6 years, i don't want him in a position of power over me for another 4 to 8.

---

What I do know, is that the Civil Liberties Union isn't some uberlord of American Justice. Batman doesn't work for the ACLU. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean that it is fixed. If the ACLU deems an action of the government as overtly anti-first amendment, then they step in, only to tie up the problem legislation in a series of high-brow, never-ending, bureaucratic appeals. In essence, the ACLU is more of a muckracker than a panacea. Take gun control -here we have a constitutional issue that is basially ignored by the ACLU. Why? It's a civil liberty that several Americans care about!

And the fact that the Democratic ticket just want's to make guns safe for kids - that's a hot load of crap. Kids who die at the hands of guns die because their parents are FUCKING MORONS. I'd like to see some legislation that pivots parents as solely responsible for child gun accidents. As a multiple gun owner, I have NEVER had a problem with my weapons. They are always either locked in a safe with a trigger lock, or snug on my hip. I can only imagine the day when all my guns require "smart locks" or electronic safeties. It's 4am, and I tell Mr. Robber, "hold on one second, let me unlock this pesky gun."

a little common sense would cure a lot of this so-called gun problem.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

-Tony

------------------
< w00t >.

yes. you are careful with your firearms. but part of the 2nd ammendment which you hold so dear says that anyone should be allowed to have a gun. youre going to have to make a compromise. lose the second ammendment, get more safety precautions on guns, or have some more children get killed. personally, the safety precautions seem to be the best way to go, IMO...but hey, whatever floats your boat.

and before you go off that i'm 'uncaring' about the deaths, remember two things. very, very often 'children' are used as the hotbutton buzzword to get a politician's hidden agenda passed, and that every year more kids die in swimming pools than are shot to death.

you wanna ban everything that harms kids? how bout we start with the things that kill more kids every year than guns and work our way down the list? swimming pools are at the top.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

but why should i, a single woman who lives alone with no children, be denied the most realistic chance i have to defend myself if someone breaks into my home because of it?

yet another reason i can't vote for al gore. because he made a statement to handgun control inc in which he said that if elected, he'll move to ban all handguns.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

there's no licensing, no training, no classes, no requirement to show 'need' if someone wants to build a pool in their back yard, and that's just something that's used for recreation. guns are used every day for self protection, to prevent a crime, and save lives, and people want more restriction on who can get 'em.

i came across a really interesting article from an arkansas news paper today...
according to the article, there are 700,000 doctors in the usa, and 120,000 accidental deaths a year caused by doctors. there are also 80,000,000 gun owners in the usa, and accidental gun deaths in /all/ age groups per year total 1500. if you run the numbers, it comes out to being 9000 times more likely to die at the hands of a doctor than accidental gunshot.

maybe we oughta license doctors.....oh wait. we DO license doctors.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
Remember, this country was founded on the seperation of church and state. That is the cornerstone of our democracy, and that is why we are here, typing on this BB today.

---

Sorry this comes a little late, I wrote it all at work yesterday, and forwarded it here since I couldn't remember my password to the forums.

FYI, if you see any posts by Hellraz0r, that's me as well.

kuru, you seem to feel very strongly about all this, but you go aout it in a shitty way. you say all these things are far worse than handguns, and so we should forget handguns. wouldnt it be a better idea just to also change these other problems?? with all the people the gov't has, im sure they can divert a few people to all these problems.

hellraiser, what this country was founded on was freedom of religion (see 1st ammendment in Bill of Rights) and that includes the freedom to a completely religion free existence. those in power should not be throwing religion down our throats, because that was the problem with English rule in the first place (as i see it anyway). so while not necessarily stated in such terms, it does mean that. if you know your history (as you so claim) youll know that the ammendments included in the bill of rights were created shortly after the constition, all being things the creators found at fault with the English ways of doing stuff. thats why separation of church and state was probably not somethin the foudnign fathers would have been against...

anyway, my point is that banning things and making more laws isn't the answer. laws don't stop crime or accidents. all a law can do is be used as a basis to punish someone AFTER a crime has been committed.

my point is that things can be licensed, registered, and tied up in bureaucracy out the wazoo, and there will still be accidental deaths. i would like it if there were no accidents with guns, but legislation and al gore's promise to ban all handguns isn't gonna do that, any more so than licensing and registration of doctors has stopped malpractice, or that training of lifeguards has stopped drowning.

i'm gonna get flamed for this... sometimes, out of those 1500 accidents, it was a darwin award candidate. no amount of legislation can stop the power of extreme stupidity.

oh yeah, and hellraiser is right. the usa is not a democracy. it's a representative republic. the difference is that our government has power because we allow them to, where in a democracy, the people can vote because the government permits them to.

the first ammendment says nothing about 'separation of church and state.' all it says is that the state (congress) can not establish a state religion and make it mandatory to believe.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

[This message has been edited by kuru (edited September 17, 2000).]

Accidental deaths? Did they mention what type of surgury they died from? Hmm? No I didn't think so, there are a LOT of risky fucking surgurys out there. Are you saying where safer to let a 5 year old fuck with a gun then send them to a doctor to get their tonsils removed? But I suppose doctors are just in it for the money right? I mean fuck, 8 years of med school whats that? Compare accidental gunshots to accidental fucking car crashes or something. Comparing that to someone dieing while in a surgury to save their life is a little fucking different.

Remeber in your posts in the Sex forum about abortion, and how you got offended by PersonGuy comparing risk of pregnacy to the Snapple under the Cap game? Well I'm fucking offended your comparing gun-control to medicine.

------------------
When my flying days are over, and my death has come to pass
I hope they bury me upside down, so the whole damn world can kiss my ass

quote:

---

Hellraiser, Hellraiser, Hellraiser...where do I begin?:
[Concerning my claim that the country was founded on a separation of church and state] That's a bunch of major bullshit. Our country was founded on the principles that all men are created equal and have equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The idea of "separation of church and state" was introduced by a handwritten letter by Andrew Jackson...Before you go spouting off what you don't know...take a look at the constitution itself, it makes for great reading.

---

I have taken several looks at the Constitution, mostly during Constitutional Law classes, and anyone who knew what they were talking about would not have written the above remark. First, the Declaration of Independence originally proclaimed the defection and liberation of the colonists. Thus, we shouldn’t solely look at the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence as well.
On it’s face, the American revolution was about taxes. The tyrannical passage of the Navigation Act, the Sugar Act, and most notoriously, the Stamp Act bred the notion of equality you brought up. The colonists wanted to be equal as royalty, and not have to pay such oppressive taxation without adequate representation.
Though taxes acted as a catalyst for revolution, oppression was at the core of the revolution. Patrick Henry and the covert Sons of Liberty labeled sinister laws such as the Declaratory Act and the Quartering Act as examples of such opression. Further mentioned was the monarchy's religious influence. The Declaration of Independence states, “[George III] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws.” Those “others” are the heads of the Anglican Church – again, the advisors and confidants of the monarchy. After the Articles of Confederation failed, the newly liberated Americans implemented their beliefs into today’s Constitution. Reflecting their hatred for religious influences on British legislation and politics, the Constitutional Convention remembered to include what we know as the 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

It's very simple. Congress (state) shall not makes laws that have have a religious (church) influence. Hence, state shall be seperated from church.

Sure, the separation of church and state was only one of several establishing elements to the invention of this country, but it is still one of the biggest. Andrew Jackson merely reminded the nation of its importance. To think otherwise is purely asinine.

[This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle (edited September 17, 2000).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by j0eSmith:
Accidental deaths? Did they mention what type of surgury they died from?

---

I have read similar studies and from what I remember these accidental deaths are due to misdiagnosis, prescription errors, medication conflicts, etc. not to surgery. In other words they are entirely avoidable errors which occur simply because the pharmacist can't read the doctor's handwriting, or the doctor or nurse doesn't bother to check pre-existing medical conditions or other medications that the patient is taking. Furthermore these errors are generally linked to the doctors being over-worked and unable to concentrate.

Of course, the number of deaths due to mis-treatment are nothing compared to how many people would die without the doctors to treat them. So why not pick on a more worthy cause of "avoidable" deaths, such as the tobacco industry?

The only reason politicians argue for gun control is because when you're chopping at those branches, if looks to people like you're doing plenty of damage, whereas hacking at the roots isn't very glamorous and doesn't get immediate results.

Guns may have increased the amount of accidental deaths and maybe even increased the rate of violent crimes, but this is nothing compared to the damage done by the tobacco industry, car crashes, or even medical malpractice (Did I hear somewhere that 100,000 errors in diagnoses and prescriptions occur each year?)

As for the original topic of this forum, sex and violence on television and in computer games, this comes closer to trying to get at the roots of the problem. Children learn what is acceptable and how to behave from observing other people, whether those other people are in real life or actors on television. I have a younger sister who spends hours watching TV in the basement, without my parents knowing what she is watching, and I have no idea what values she is learning from those shows. I myself have not watched commercial television in several months, nor do I feel any need to. The vast majority of what is on TV is absolute trash, and plus I don't like all the commercials trying to influence me.

If politicians want to end human violence, they should draft a bill to put mind-controlling drugs in our drinking water. I'm sure that would be _very_ popular with the voting population.

second, we do not live in a representative republic, we live in a representative democracy, there is a difference. personally, i would rather have a direct democracy solely for electing the president, cause the electoral college is a relic of older times, but thats another rant.

remember this sentence? "i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.."
this is a republic, whether you want to admit it or not. even ben franklin said so, when asked what kind of government the continental congress was going to give the states. he replied to the woman by saying 'a republic... if you can keep it.'

as for the thing about murder being legal, i doubt it would change much. by that statement alone you're assuming that your average joe would just go out and start killing people if it became legal to do so. i doubt it. most people have moral beliefs that prevent them from killing other people. those who don't, generally don't give a flying fuck about whether it's legal or not.
you might find a small number of people who would kill someone if they knew they could get away with it... but generally, these are people who are already capable of killing someone.

quote:

---

j0esmith said:

Are you saying where safer to let a 5 year old fuck with a gun then send them to a doctor to get their tonsils removed?

---

properly supervised with a gun? yes. i've been a target shooter since i was kindergarten age.

quote:

---

still j0esmith:

Compare accidental gunshots to accidental fucking car crashes or something.

---

ok. how's 1500 accidental gunshot deaths vs 50,000 car accident deaths? there are probably almost as many gun owners as drivers. (80,000,000 gun owners, i don't know exactly how many drivers there are.)

quote:

---

then whiskey@throttle said:

It's very simple. Congress (state) shall not makes laws that have have a religious (church) influence. Hence, state shall be seperated from church.

---

how you got that from 'congress shall make no law regarding the establisment of religion' i have no idea. the first ammendment guaranteed nothing more than that the government couldn't establish a state religion in which participation was mandatory. it NEVER said that a person had to leave his religious beliefs at home when he came to the office. oh, and to go on with how disseparate church and state really were when this republic was founded "and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under GOD, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." you might also wanna take another look at that declaration of independence, because unless it changed in the last 224 years, it says "...that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

the founders definately included god in their government.

michael: i don't remember off-hand how many people die every year from tobacco smoking related illnesses... if you do, please enlighten. i'm sure it's higher than 1500.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
Before you decide to show us how much of a smart-ass you are, let me give you a history lesson.

I have taken several looks at the Constitution, mostly during Constitutional Law classes, and anyone who knew what they were talking about would not have written the above remark. First, the Declaration of Independence originally proclaimed the defection and liberation of the colonists. Thus, we shouldn’t solely look at the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence as well.
On it’s face, the American revolution was about taxes. The tyrannical passage of the Navigation Act, the Sugar Act, and most notoriously, the Stamp Act bred the notion of equality you brought up. The colonists wanted to be equal as royalty, and not have to pay such oppressive taxation without adequate representation.
Though taxes acted as a catalyst for revolution, oppression was at the core of the revolution. Patrick Henry and the covert Sons of Liberty labeled sinister laws such as the Declaratory Act and the Quartering Act as examples of such opression. Further mentioned was the monarchy's religious influence. The Declaration of Independence states, “[George III] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws.” Those “others” are the heads of the Anglican Church – again, the advisors and confidants of the monarchy. After the Articles of Confederation failed, the newly liberated Americans implemented their beliefs into today’s Constitution. Reflecting their hatred for religious influences on British legislation and politics, the Constitutional Convention remembered to include what we know as the 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

It's very simple. Congress (state) shall not makes laws that have have a religious (church) influence. Hence, state shall be seperated from church.

Sure, the separation of church and state was only one of several establishing elements to the invention of this country, but it is still one of the biggest. Andrew Jackson merely reminded the nation of its importance. To think otherwise is purely asinine.

---

Before you go off the handle at me, reread your first post. Separation of Church and State was not the cornerstone of our "democracy" (which is not after all a democracy.) That was the point I was making in my post. Freedom from oppression of any kind, including but not limited to excess taxes and religious oppression, was the cornerstone upon which our country was founded.

You have to look at the whole picture here. Separation of Church and State is one way (of many) in which religious oppression is dealt with, but it is not what the constitution was based on. That our country was based on separation of Church and State is the kind of bullshit statement that has allowed our constitution to be twisted so as to justify almost anything, and has made it so the constitution itself is virtually meaningless in our country today. Hell, I bet half of the people who read this have never read the constitution in its entirety and do not know most of the rights it grants you, as an American citizen. Many if not all of these rights have been encroached on by unconstitutional laws that were passed simply because most people didn't know they were unconstitutional.

And "separation of church and state" was never in the constitution anyways. I won't repeat my first statement, because I don't want to waste your time. Scroll up and reread my first post.

Your second post, while still being a bit asinine, shows a much better understanding of the constitution and the tenets on which our country was formed than your first post did. However, I do suggest that you still read a bit more of your country’s history, or else learn better to express what you have learned.

And before you ask, I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the government has no right to interfere with people’s religion. Banning prayer in school is just such an interference that is forbidden by the First Amendment in the bill of rights that you so eloquently quoted.

It is also interesting to note that we are now being taxed far more than the colonists were, with no real representation for the working classes, and yet most of us are perfectly complacent about it. I myself am not complacent about this oppression we face with such equanimity; I think it’s high time for either a revolution or a major change of government.

And if you reread my first post, you will notice that at no time did I state that the constitution was the whole foundation of our country. It is however, the most important part of the foundation of our country.
The Declaration of Independence was stating why we were fighting England; for freedom from oppression. After we gained our freedom, we had no basis upon which to form our government; the Declaration was not such a document. Then the Articles of Confederation were adopted by many states, but failed to provide a solid basis for government, and soon many were starting to complain. Hence the constitutional convention was held, where the constitution was drawn up and ratified by the first 13 colonies. At that point, the United States were first truly united in choosing their form of government. Thus, while the Declaration of Independence has immeasurable importance in our history, the Constitution (which if you have read as many times as you claimed, you will know contains provisions for most, if not all, of the points in the Declaration of Independence) is still by far the most important part of the foundation of our country, and the only part which is actually incorporated in our government.

Make of that what you will.

And yes, I did edit this message, but not to add anything, it's just that the bold parts in your original post messed up my formatting. :P

[This message has been edited by Hellraiser (edited September 18, 2000).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellraiser:
Before you go off the handle at me, reread your first post. Separation of Church and State was not the cornerstone of our "democracy"...Separation of Church and State is one way (of many) in which religious oppression is dealt with, but it is not what the constitution was based on.

---

Here's another quote, "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary...to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

Laws of Nature = Laws of Man. Nature's God = Whatever deity you want to believe exists. Note the word "separate".

Perhaps "cornerstone" was a bit too ambitious, but if you actually read my second post on the issue, you'll see that I mention that the separation of church and state was only ONE of many foundations to the government. It is a fact that the British monarchy confided in the Anglican Church. It is a fact that no British disciple was to be a member of any church besides the Anglican Church. It is a fact that the colonists loathed George III's inclusion of religion in politics, and sought to create a country where this did not exist.

The definition of God includes, "any of various beings conceived of as supernatural...OR an image that is worshipped; idol." So when we say the Pledge of Allegiance, it can mean anything to anyone that recites it. But who gives a shit about the fucking pledge?! When did that become an official document?

quote:

---

Hellraiser also said:
That our country was based on separation of Church and State is the kind of bullshit statement that has allowed our constitution to be twisted so as to justify almost anything, and has made it so the constitution itself is virtually meaningless in our country today.

---

Reread the quote at the top of this post from the Declaration of Independence. Then, take your own advice and pick up the Constitution. I want you to find and quote any one part of the Constitution that mentions God. ANY part. To see your supporters reduced to avoiding the truly important documents and relying on the fucking Pledge of Allegiance to support your feeble and insubstantial claim is sickening. What’s next, are you guys going to quote the dollar bill?

The Constitutional Convention, in designing the quintessential backbone to this country, knew to be exceedingly specific at certain times and vague in others. This is because they wanted the Constitution to be open to interpretation. Take from it what you will. The fact that we are debating this point shows that their intentions were fulfilled. But then again, I challenge you to use the Constitution or Declaration of Independence to refute my argument.

"Sorry, I didn't find any documents that matched your search for "God"!

quote:

---

Originally posted by pengu1nn:
i live in the "bible belt" it sux!
if you don't goto church here then you are a bad person and noone want to have anything to do with you, it's not like this everywhere but it is here.

---

People are always ready to defend your Constitutional rights of freedom until you stop agreeing with them. Unfortunately freedom of speech is taken by lots of people to mean that they should have no qualms about hating someone who doesn't share their values. Bunch of hypocrites...

Bible Belt; I can sympathize with that. I have some relatives who are Southern Baptist, and their church once put on a "pro-life musical." Scary stuff. The little kids in it had no idea what the whole thing was about...

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
Reread the quote at the top of this post from the Declaration of Independence. Then, take your own advice and pick up the Constitution. I want you to find and quote any one part of the Constitution that mentions God. ANY part. To see your supporters reduced to avoiding the truly important documents and relying on the fucking Pledge of Allegiance to support your feeble and insubstantial claim is sickening. What’s next, are you guys going to quote the dollar bill?

The Constitutional Convention, in designing the quintessential backbone to this country, knew to be exceedingly specific at certain times and vague in others. This is because they wanted the Constitution to be open to interpretation. Take from it what you will. The fact that we are debating this point shows that their intentions were fulfilled. But then again, I challenge you to use the Constitution or Declaration of Independence to refute my argument.

---

Go take another look at both of my posts. In neither place did I state, or even imply that the constitution refers in any way shape or form to the Judean-Christian God. How the fuck you could have interpreted that from my posts is beyond me. It simply is not logical. Go ahead and believe what you want to about the foundation of our country, who am I to stop you? But if you want to say that the constitution supports your stance, you have to find evidence that it does definitively support your stance.

Perhaps I should clarify: it is wrong to say that you cannot pray in school. It is also wrong to say that if you don’t want to, you have to. Both of those are violations of the first amendment, which says 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. Saying there is a place in which I cannot pray, or speak out loud to my god, is a definite violation of this. This amendment is definitely saying that Congress has no right to make a law establishing a state religion, or prohibiting my freedom to exercise my religion where and when I want to. It also states clearly, with no room for interpretation that I have freedom of speech (the freedom to say what I want to), freedom to assemble peaceably, (note: this allows for peaceable protests, but not for violent protests, in case that needed clarification to anyone. As soon as a protest becomes in any way NOT peaceable, it is no longer protected under this amendment.) and that people may petition the government to right wrongs or grievances that were done to them. I think that is clear enough.

Until there is an amendment passed which clarifies this to say, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless they feel they are justified in doing so,” that definitely maintains my right to pray in school if I want to, and to pray out loud. Of course, if a school wants to have a policy that you are not allowed to speak out loud in class unless you raise your hand and address the teacher, and ask him or her for permission to speak, that is perfectly fine. That is the teachers or the schools prerogatives.

The thing here is the principle. If they can bypass the first amendment and ban prayer in school, the door has been opened for them to go so far as to ban all references to God in school, then ban all references to any religious figures in school, and so on and so forth until we no longer have any legal right to practice our religion (or lack thereof) freely.

In taking this even further, people may someday read into that statement to say the constitution calls for there to be a State of no religion, therefore you may practice religion as long as you do not do it within the United States of America, and as long as you never in public mention the word “God” or address any statement to “God,” or your religious deity or leader.

This is the same reason that I am against gun control of any kind: take a look at the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, or in more modern language, You can’t take away any part of the people’s right to own guns. This can be quantified to say that you can’t require the people to wait five days before buying a gun, you can’t say that people can’t own certain types of guns, and you can’t say that people can’t own more than a certain number of guns or have more than a certain amount of ammunition, you can’t in any way infringe or encroach on the right of the people to own and carry guns. Almost all forms of gun control that have been introduced and passed in some way or another infringe on my right as a US citizen to own and carry a gun.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Right there, the supremecy of the Constitution over the Declaration of Independence in terms of our government is established. The Constitution is the final word. Unfortunately, the supreme court judges and the politicians no longer see it as the final word, which is why these obviously forbidden laws have been passed.

Any way in which the government tries to control the people is wrong, and should not be tolerated. The sad fact is that in some cases, people’s lack of responsibility has limited their freedom by allowing room for the government to gain control over basic aspects of their lives.

If you again try to twist my words into meaning something other than their literal meaning, as far as I'm concerned you can go fuck yourself, or your little sister, whichever you prefer. I'm tired of defending myself to your stupidity and inane remarks. Far be it from me to impede on your freedom of speech by telling you how you can or can't make a fool of yourself.

quote:

---

whiskey@throttle

To see your supporters reduced to avoiding the truly important documents and relying on the fucking Pledge of Allegiance to support your feeble and insubstantial claim is sickening. What’s next, are you guys going to quote the dollar bill?

---

later, but now i will quote Ammendment 1 to the Constitution of the United States.

quote:

---

Ammendment 1

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.

---

nowhere in the First Ammendment is a restriction against praying in a public place, even in a school. it does not, anywhere, say that religion must be discarded at the door. all it says is that the government cannot establish a religion or force anyone to participate in a religion or not participate in the religion of their choice. the reality of things is that this country was founded by middle-aged white christian men.

also, whehter you like it or not, the founders of this country included "god" in their reasons for breaking from england. the Declaration of Independence specifically states that "..all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...." according to you, we're not allowed to quote this document, the Pledge of Allegiance, or even the national motto (you know, the "In God We Trust" that's on all our money).

other inclusions of religion:

in 1977 in a book published by the House of Representitives, the it was issued that the stars on the US Flag stand for "the heavens and the divine goal to which man has aspired from time immemorial."

there is also the Oath of Office taken by the President, and more commonly, as a witness in any courtroom in the US takes the stand, the left hand is placed on the Bible.

the Gettysburg Address, delivered by Lincoln in 1863: "..that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.."
these are just a few examples of the inclusion of religion that i dug up rather quickly.

i'm pretty sure you'll just slam me as some kind of bible thumper, whiskey, but i'm far from it. i'm not even a christian. however, i don't seem to have an unreasonable fear of the fact that my history was in many cases made and written by christians. the facts are that people don't stop being people when they leave their homes and go to school or work. their beliefs go with them. and if we're really wise, whether we believe the same as them or not, we'll try to learn something from them. i've learned a lot from people i know with different religious beliefs.... all the way from Satanist to Hindu to Wiccan to Hassidic Jew, and none of them tried to make me believe the way they did.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

[This message has been edited by kuru (edited September 18, 2000).]

> Take out a one dollar bill and look at it.
>
> The one dollar bill you're looking at first came off the presses in 1957
> in its present design. This so-called paper money is in fact a cotton and
> linen blend, with red and blue minute silk fibers running through it. It
> is actually material.
>
> We've all washed it without it falling apart. A special blend of ink is
> used, the contents we will never know. It is overprinted with symbols and
> then it is starched to make it water resistant and pressed to give it that
> nice crisp look.
>
> If you look on the front of the bill, you will see the United States
> Treasury Seal. On the top you will see the scales for the balance-a
> balanced budget. In the center you have a carpenter's T-square, a tool
> used for an even cut. Underneath is the Key to the United States Treasury.
> That's all pretty easy to figure out, but what is on the back of that
> dollar bill is something we should all know.
>
> If you turn the bill over, you will see two circles. Both circles,
> together, comprise the Great Seal of the United States. The First
> Continental Congress requested that Benjamin Franklin and a group of men
> come up with a Seal. It took them four years to accomplish this task and
> another two years to get it approved.
>
> If you look at the left hand circle, you will see a Pyramid. Notice the
> face is lighted and the western side is dark. This country was just
> beginning. We had not begun to explore the West or decided what we could
> do for Western Civilization. The Pyramid is un-capped, again signifying
> that we were not even close to being finished. Inside the capstone you
> have the all-seeing eye, and ancient symbol for divinity. It was
> Franklin's belief that one man couldn't do it alone, but a group of men,
> with the help of God, could do anything. "IN GOD WE TRUST" is on this
> currency. The Latin above the pyramid, ANNUIT COEPTIS, means "God has
> favored our undertaking." The Latin below the pyramid, NOVUS ORDO
> SECLORUM, means "a new order has begun." At the base of the pyramid is the
> Roman Numeral for 1776.
>
> If you look at the right-hand circle, and check it carefully, you will
> learn that it is on every National Cemetery in the United States. It is
> also on the Parade of Flags Walkway at the Bushnell, Florida National
> Cemetery and is the centerpiece of most hero's monuments. Slightly
> modified, it is the seal of the President of the United States and it is
> always visible whenever he speaks, yet no one knows what the symbols mean.
>
> The Bald Eagle was selected as a symbol for victory for two reasons:
> first, he is not afraid of a storm; he is strong and he is smart enough to
> soar above it. Secondly, he wears no material crown. We had just broken
> from the King of England. Also, notice the shield is unsupported. This
> country can now stand on its own. At the top of that shield you have a
> white bar signifying congress, a unifying factor. We were coming together
> as one nation. In the Eagle's beak you will read, "E PLURIBUS UNUM,"
> meaning "one nation from many people."
>
> Above the Eagle you have thirteen stars representing the thirteen original
> colonies, and any clouds of misunderstanding rolling away. Again, we were
> coming together as one. Notice what the Eagle holds in his talons. He
> holds an olive branch and arrows. This country wants peace, but we will
> never be afraid to fight to preserve peace. The Eagle always wants to face
> the olive branch, but in time of war, his gaze turns toward the arrows.
>
> They say that the number 13 is an unlucky number. This is almost a
> worldwide belief. You will usually never see a room numbered 13, or any
> hotels or motels with a 13th floor. But, think about this: 13 original
> colonies, 13 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 13 stripes on our
> flag, 13 steps on the Pyramid, 13 letters in the Latin above, 13 letters
> in "E Pluribus Unum", 13 stars above the Eagle, 13 plumes of feathers on
> each span of the Eagle's wing, 13 bars on that shield, 13 leaves on the
> olive branch, 13 fruits, and if you look closely, 13 arrows. And for
> minorities: the 13th Amendment.
>
> I always ask people, "Why don't you know this?" Your children don't know
> this and their history teachers don't know.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

quote:

---

Here, you said it
it is wrong to say that you cannot pray in school. It is also wrong to say that if you don’t want to, you have to...banning prayer in school is just such an interference that is forbidden by the First Amendment

---

First of all, you’re getting way off the topic, and you are the one who’s twisting the words. This whole argument was spawned from the notion that Joe Lieberman is overly religious, and his zealousness carries the potential to interfere with his ability to be an objective politician.

This does not mean that every aspect of government is proclaimed to be separate from religion. How you got that from my post, I have no fucking clue. It seems, Hellraiser, that you are either too ignorant or too one-sided to see that there is a middle ground. The separation of church and state does not mean that no one in a governmental position can have a religion, or that you can’t have your freedom to choose between religions. That is not the point. It never was the point. Any nitwit with half a brain could have figured that out. Why you dragged the debate this far off the mark I will never know.

Again, what I originally meant was that this country was founded on the notion, amongst other ideals, that religion, while cherished and acceptable, should not interfere with the legislation that governs the masses. This is because the religion of certain citizens may not coincide with the religion of those in power. The reason I brought up the Declaration, whether or not the Constitution supersedes it, is to show how the separation of church and state played its role in the formation of the US. Stop avoiding the facts just because they destroy your pathetic argument. Read my last post if you can’t remember what was said.

quote:

---

But if you want to say that the constitution supports your stance, you have to find evidence that it does definitively support your stance.

---

Oh, I did. And I will again in this post. Read it this time.

quote:

---

Hellraiser:
You can’t take away any part of the people’s right to own guns. This can be quantified (?) to say that you can’t require the people to wait five days before buying a gun, you can’t say that people can’t own certain types of guns

---

Like I said earlier… what the fuck? Who cares? We’re talking about religious influences in politics and legislation, not your weak analogies and tangents. Sure, every president has been a Christian (with the exception of a Catholic Kennedy). Sure, our money states, “In God we trust.” Sure, we say, “one nation under God” in our pledge. But the thing that all of these sayings have in common is clear: they are non-intrusive. I don’t have to say the pledge. Having a religious tenet on a coin does not affect my daily actions. And most of all, the presidents religion should never interfere with the laws that affect me.

THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT.

Like I originally said
I may vote for Gore/Lieberman...but not if that means succumbing my right to watch violence because of other's religion in my legislation.

quote:

---

Hellraiser:
In neither place did I state, or even imply that the constitution refers in any way shape or form to the Judean-Christian God. How the fuck you could have interpreted that from my posts is beyond me.

---

But anyone with a modicum of intelligence could deduce the point I was trying to make: the Constitution carries no references to God because it is not supposed to, and was never intended to!! Unlike the dollar bill or the Pledge, the Constitution is the “final word”, which you acknowledged (“the supremacy of the Constitution over the Declaration of Independence in terms of our government is established…) . If that is the “final word,” and religion is to be a part of politics and legislation, why is it not mentioned?

I’ll tell you why. Because it says this instead: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” What does this mean? It’s not that you can’t pray in school, it’s that Congress shall never force an act that respects, conveys, or enacts a religion or religious influence into law. This doesn’t mean that the majority whip has to come out and say, “everyone will become a Christian!” It means that the state is not allowed to come out and say, “we are banning violence on TV because we believe in Jesus, and the Bible preaches non-violence.” If they did that, they would in essence be respecting an establishment of religion in out government. And that is unconstitutional. Joe Lieberman carries the threat of emulating this, and that is why the Jewish ADL attacked his politics.

When I asked you to find something in the Declaration or Constitution that refutes my point, I was challenging you to find out otherwise with credibility, instead of your feverish rants. I don’t give a flying fuck if you brought it up before or not. I am trying to show you something you obviously are too ignorant to understand. It’s your sheer stubbornness in denying the facts and circling around the issue I’m trying to spell out for you that’s annoying me. Pull your head out of your ass so you can read the monitor better.

Edit: Whoops. Had to fix the formatting.

[This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle (edited September 18, 2000).]

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
Here's another quote, "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary...to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

Laws of Nature = Laws of Man. Nature's God = Whatever deity you want to believe exists. Note the word "separate".

---

For some reason, this wasn't included in the reply w/quote, but it does bear a reply.

First of all, you persist in quoting things out of context to support your position. So far, whenever I have quoted anything, I have quoted the whole paragraph or section. So I will start off by doing so.

quote:

---

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

---

That shows the context of the statement that you so eloquently misquoted, and from this, you can not in any way infer a separation between church and state.

It is seen here that the laws of nature and of nature's God are granting the same thing: they are granting the people a separate and equal station to those with whom they shared political bonds. Even a very basic command of the English language reveals this. There is no hidden subtlety implying that nature and nature's God should be kept separate, and hence the Government and the Church should never meet. But then, judging by some of the other connections you have made from the wording of the constitution, I probably should not be surprised.

I'll break down the gramatical structure so you can see:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another (when it's time for a people to become politically distinct from the people they were once politically connected to), and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, ( and take their rightful place as a separate and equal power among the powers of the earth: separate and equal, as it is evident, describe station), A decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation ( because they respect the other's opinions, they tell the others why they want to be a separate power.) Essentially, what is being said here in so many words is that the authors feel that they need to tell England why they are declaring independence. The next paragraph starts into the reasoning behind declaring independence, and lists as one of the reasons for political separation, the belief that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain rights, and that the purpose of government is to secure these rights by consent of those governed, and when the government no longer is fulfilling its purpose, it is the people's right to make a new government that will do for them what the old government failed to do.

The basic difference between the two political bodies at this time was that the English government thought the peole were there to serve the government, and the colonists felt that the government should serve the people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Observer:
I just found it rather amusing that you didn't consider Catholics to be Christian, when they were one of the founding Christian religions, if not the one for the western world. Just some more wood on the fire. It's cold in here.

---

Catholicism is not exactly Christianity, but rather a muddling of Christian and Pagan beliefs. In fact, much of what is now considered Christianity is nothing like the origins of the religion; anyone who has ever studied the Bible and compared what is taught in the New Testament to what is practiced in most Christian circles knows the two are as different as salt and pepper. Much the same is true of almost every major religion; it is nothing like the way it was when it was founded. This evidences very much of the organic and changing nature of man.

I find it slightly humerous that people seem to resent so much any political affiliations with any religion, yet well over 90\% of the US professes some form of Christianity.

As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing to get all riled up at, religion is definitely a part of society and culture around the world, there is no need to be so fearful of it contaminating us since we are the source of it.

I do have a problem with people who profess to believe in the ideals of freedom, but want to impose laws that limit freedom, especially the type of laws that say, "if the minority doesn't feel free to do it, than no one should be allowed to do it." And even more especially when those laws are highly unconstitutional and the supporters try to take words and phrases from the constitution out of context and twist them to support their position.

There are some things that I think are right and wrong that I would never want to see a law about because I don't feel that anyone has the right to impose such laws on anyone else. The only place for laws is to protect people from real harm inflicted by others. Hearing someone else's religious beliefs or prayers is not really harmful, not in the way that verbal abuse or physical assault or rape are. Those are what laws were designed to deal with. The rest should be left up to society, to determine whether or not it's polite to say "fuck!" when something goes wrong, or whether or not it's alright to be nude on the beaches, or if it is acceptable for a child to pray out loud before eating his dinner in the cafiterium, that kind of thing is not the stuff for laws to be made of. If you have a problem sending your child to a school where they will be exposed to many cultures and religious beliefs, then send your child to a private school! A religion should not be taught as part of a curiculum, although it's perfectly acceptable to teach a course which details different religions, as long as it is taken as a subject, such as history. In fact, it would be virtually impossible to separate all religious references from a history book and still give the child a fair understanding of history. Religions and cultures are as integral to our Human history as they remain today. They are a part of our heritage that deserves as much play as the exploits of Alexander the Great, or the philosophy of Ptolemy.

Such things should not be determined by government, but by the people of each district, who are directly affected by them. And the constitution is right in making these things out of the jurisdiction of the government. After all, would you prefer the type of government where Queen Elizabeth was free to establish the Church of England, or a government where the Congress of the people is not free to make laws in any way limiting religious or personal expression?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellraiser:
[Before discussing the Declaration] For some reason, this wasn't included in the reply w/quote, but it does bear a reply.

---

Actually, it does not. Because you originally said this:

quote:

---

But if you want to say that the constitution supports your stance, you have to find evidence that it does definitively support your stance.

---

So I stuck with the Constitution instead. But once again, you have shifted the discussion to something from the past in a futile attempt to take the spotlight off the nonsensical fatuity that is your opinion.

quote:

---

Ugh, it never ends:
First of all, you persist in quoting things out of context to support your position. So far, whenever I have quoted anything, I have quoted the whole paragraph or section.

---

And for that you get a big, chewy sugarcookie, Hellraiser. Kudos to you! BTW, the reason I don't quote the whole load is because I hate re-reading the entire message (or even the vast majority), as you have so often posted...you know what you wrote, I know what you wrote, and it takes up far too much room to repost it all. Try scrolling- it's fun!

quote:

---

Here's a quote for ya'
I think it’s high time for either a revolution or a major change of government.

---

Ooh, you dashing rebel-rouser, you. Sorry, I couldn't help it. Honestly, I apologize for the harsh words and attacks. Seriously. I understand if you want to flame me some more. Knock yer self out. When you're done, let's just agree to disagree, okay?

Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned, my last post stands without refutation. But I'm sure you feel the same way about your posts.

G'nite. Peace out.
-W@T

[This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle (edited September 18, 2000).]

i don't want to my kids (if and when i have some/one?) to be praying at a place where i sent them to learn. also i don't want my kids to to made fun of because they don't pray (if they chose not to): lets say i'm a moslum (spellimg?) or some other religion that in order to pray requiers me to face the sun to the east, and the prayer has a loud and kinda annoying chant to go with it. now that might be fine in the middle east (or in the "privacy" of your own home) but in a community where everyone is pretty much jewish it just wouldn't work out.

i live in the "bible belt" it sux!
if you don't goto church here then you are a bad person and noone want to have anything to do with you, it's not like this everywhere but it is here.

church should be done on your time! if you are in a government office then i am paying you to be there to represnt me (taxes), even if i didn't vote for you, and god doesn't run this country. if god wants to come down here and run this counrty then that would be different. Our laws should not be influanced by a supernatural being that isn't even on this plane of existance!

<my statements of the moslem and jewish religions were only examples, i do not know exactly how these religions work, nor do i want to know. it was an example, live with it, replace it with a different religion! it doesn't really matter what you do with it as this is how i feel not you!>

also, my spelling is bad. i know this. don't waste energy to tell me that i can't spell.

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
But anyone with a modicum of intelligence could deduce the point I was trying to make: the Constitution carries no references to God because it is not supposed to, and was never intended to!! Unlike the dollar bill or the Pledge, the Constitution is the "final word", which you acknowledged ("the supremacy of the Constitution over the Declaration of Independence in terms of our government is established...). If that is the "final word," and religion is to be a part of politics and legislation, why is it not mentioned?

I'll tell you why. Because it says this instead: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." What does this mean? It's not that you can't pray in school, it's that Congress shall never force an act that respects, conveys, or enacts a religion or religious influence into law. This doesn't mean that the majority whip has to come out and say, "Everyone will become a Christian!" It means that the state is not allowed to come out and say, "We are banning violence on TV because we believe in Jesus, and the Bible preaches non-violence." If they did that, they would in essence be respecting an establishment of religion in out government. And that is unconstitutional. Joe Lieberman carries the threat of emulating this, and that is why the Jewish ADL attacked his politics.

---

Now you are starting to make sense. You have even changed your stance on several issues that you took with me earlier, such as the supremacy of the constitution.

I have never advocated at any time including religion in politics. Political decisions should never be made on religious influence. That does not mean that politics should do its best to stay away from making the same decisions that would be made under religious influence: political decisions should be entirely free of religious influence, both positive and negative. I think you'll agree with me on that.

I have made extensive study of some of the influences in US government, and in so doing have read over the constitution on numerous occasions, especially the bill of rights, which is as much a part of the constitution as if it had been written in the first sitting. Some of the later amendments, while still being important, are not nearly as vital to our country as those freedoms and rights granted in the bill of rights. The whole purpose of those first 10 amendments was to limit government control over people, in an attempt to prevent a situation similar to the rule of England, which the colonies had paid such a high price to break free from. It's true that certain sections of the constitution were left open to interpretation, but the bill of rights is certainly not one of those parts.

The point I've been driving at is that in your previous posts, you either unconsciously or deliberately quoted sections of the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of rights out of context, and made erroneous conclusions about what was implied or meant by them, and used these conclusions to justify a stance that was in disagreement with the context from which you had taken the quote. It is just this kind of bandying about of our country's foundation that has allowed the constitution to be so meaningless as it is today.

You are exactly right that it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." When you look at that you may think, "Yeah, that might imply a separation of church and state, and might leave room to do something like ban prayer in school." But it also goes on to say, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Wait! Now we see a limit to what actions we are allowed to take to separate church from state. No longer can we think of doing something like banning prayer in school, because we are not allowed to make any law prohibiting free exercise thereof.

And personally, I'm glad I'm not old enough to vote, because none of the candidates that I have seen have even come close to being the type of person I would vote into office as president. A president needs to be a leader, the kind of person that you can look up to, and an example for the people: he needs to be honest, and some one you can trust to not be swayed by beliefs or propaganda. I don't think that there have been more than 10 presidents in our history that that could be said of.

One thing you seem to have a hard time with from what i can see is Critical Reading, and the way it works is you look at something and you see it from the author's perspective based on what you know of their personality and the timeframe in which they wrote. Based on that, you get a much fuller understanding of the text you are reading. Perhaps next time, it would be better to look at the Constitution in the frame of mind of the people who wrote it, not the people who wrote your Civics or Gov. textbook; for the most part they have just as much an agenda as the federal judges and politicians who have dragged the Constitution through the mud.

I don't see much point in continuing this debate because all either of us has managed to do is find a couple of things we agree on and quite a few more things we rabidly disagree on. Remember, there are always two or more sides to a debate. As much as you would like to think of me as being argumentative and stubborn for not giving in to your opinions, the same could be said of you for refusing to see the validity of my own opinions. Sorry if I came off a bit offensive in places, but in rereading these posts I have come to the conclusion that you did not thoroughly read my posts, because there is no way if you had you could have thought I said or implied some of the things you thought I said or implied: I won't go into detail now because it is 3:00 AM and I need to get some sleep.

Suffice it to say that Religion and politics do not mix, but this is not reason to make laws infringing on religious freedom, or any other type of freedom. The Constitution is clear on what isn't allowed in terms of limiting freedom, and being the most important part of our government should be respected far more than it is. Although there is no express mention of God in the Constitution, in reading it there is not really any place in it for God due to the practical nature of the document. The people who wrote it however were mostly white Christians as kuru pointed out, and references to a God or Creator can be seen in other parts of our country's heritage, including the other important document you brought up, the Declaration of Independence. And separation of church and state is not the cornerstone of our democracy. That was the statement that I first took issue with. The cornerstone of our representative republic was the people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to freedom from governmental and religious oppression. Thus we don't want someone in office who is going to use religious beliefs as a basis to pass laws that limit our rights by dictating what we can and cannot do. If you don't agree with any of this last paragraph here, more power to you. It's your freedom to disagree with me that is what is at stake here.

The reason this comes so late is that my internet connection went out just as I was typing this. In fact, most of my posts have been quite a bit later than I wanted for this very same reason. I shall have to get after @home for messing with my debate :P It's been fun though.

I shall probably not be making any more posts to this particular thread unless I see something that begs flaming. It seems that we both agreed to drop it at about the same time.

Peace and good...day to you too.

Hellraiser out.

i forget who said it, but they were citing god as being in the constitution as the word "creator"

thats bullshit. creator is literally your maker, not necessarily god. in my interpretation (and we all have one) creator is my mom and my dad. they created me, and i spose if you want to take it farther you can go my grandparents and so forth all the way back to the first amino acids and such. the point is, creator does not necessarily mean god. thank you and goodnight.

Now for my stance....

During school hours, no prayer should be approved by the school staff/administration. To approve it is to endorse it. However, if a student wished to pray, their right to should not be infringed. If a class representative wanted to make a speech at a graduation, and included a prayer, that is OK. However, a student led prayer organized by the school and led by this speech giver is not. No particular religion should be approved, because it is special treatment. Then you must give all churches fair treatment, and then what about atheists? There is usually a middle ground, and this is it. Pray all you want, but the administration can't be involved. This middle ground protects all rights, so that all are treated fairly.

On government officials, I don't give a rat's ass what religion they are, just as long as they get the job done. Religion is like skin color or historical background, it is not a factor for my choosing of an individual. The problem lies, as some said earlier, with some religious officials trying to railroad their beliefs through laws.

(Mr. Rodgers voice) "Can you say 'Darwin?' Not on a test!"

Okay, back to being serious. The anti-Darwin test stuff is meaningless. You don't have to believe in evolution if you learn it. Just like I don't believe in God, but I have learned a great deal on that subject. The religious leaders are afraid that if an alternate viewpoint is set up, that everyone will follow it. This shows a lack of faith, not in God, but in the followers of the religion. If their faith is true, they will still believe, even after learning about natural selection and speciation.

Number three, you guys need to stop fighting! No one will get anywhere if this thread becomes a shouting match. I know I've said this before, but I really don't like fighting. Like Jello Biafra said as the title to one of his tracks: "I was a teenage pacifist." I know that conflict will always exist, but the conflict should be directed toward viewpoints, not anger. I know sometimes you MUST fight (U.S. Revolutionary War) but not on a BBS thread.

I hope I get flamed for that last part, just to see if those who post use reason to back up the flame. I hope so, I'm tired of reading "you suck."

if someone got the impression that i was saying creator = god, then i'm sorry, i should've been more clear. creator is just a term that people use in their either religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs.... and all that was meant by the inclusion of it in the declaration of independece is that there are some rights that are common to all human beings, that can't be given to men by other men... so they used the best-fit word they could. 'their creator.'

they only meant that rights are not given by governments, but belong to human beings by virtue of nothing more than that they are human beings. it's a somewhat religious reference, in that christians believe god is the creator, atheists don't believe in 'a creator', personally, i believe 'the creator' is a non-entity... it just nature made us. it's whatever your personal religious beliefs tell you it is, but since thomas jefferson was a christian, i'm pretty sure he believed god is the creator.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bozeman:
Number three, you guys need to stop fighting! No one will get anywhere if this thread becomes a shouting match. I know I've said this before, but I really don't like fighting. Like Jello Biafra said as the title to one of his tracks: "I was a teenage pacifist." I know that conflict will always exist, but the conflict should be directed toward viewpoints, not anger. I know sometimes you MUST fight (U.S. Revolutionary War) but not on a BBS thread.

I hope I get flamed for that last part, just to see if those who post use reason to back up the flame. I hope so, I'm tired of reading "you suck."

---

you suck.

Sorry, couldn't help myself :P

Most of the posts I make are done in the spirit of a good debate, but when someone twists my words, or says something that I take issue with, the sparks are bound to fly.

I know I was less than tactful at times, but the same could be said of my opposition, so I don't feel that I have a need to apologize.

And as for you Bozeman, there is a time and place for fighting and debating, a UBB forum is much better time and place than a war. I hate wars, I feel there is always a better way, but probably the better way will never be taken. That's why I advocate revolution and free thinking: most wars are a result in some way of a people being complacent too long, then reacting at the last minute. Actually they aren't but it makes for a good story, and I'm sure that some are.

If you can make sense of this post, you've probably had less sleep than I, because I'm in need of sleep and this doesn't make sense, so I'll end it now.

There, you happy now whiskey? :P

[This message has been edited by Hellraiser (edited September 20, 2000).]

Speaking of which, with all the opinions stated on the convergence of religion and politics, what do you guys think about the current candidates? Do you think Leiberman's "Culture of Carnage" crusade is too religiously influenced?

I think it is. Leiberman (and Dick Cheney's wife) both seem to agree on attacking violence and sex in the entertainment industry. I am pretty confident this has to do with their religious values, and that really pisses me off. Again, I reference J.Stuart Mill, and his 1859 argument from On Liberty ...Deorum injuriae Diis curae, or, leave offenses against the gods to the care of the gods. Likewise, leave victimless "crimes" to the care of those who commit those offenses (i,e- drugs/alcohol, prostitution, homosexuality, abortion, etc.). Sure, some of those examples are moot points, but the spirit of Mill's argument still stands:

Don't let your personal value judgements affect the lives of others.

p.s. Hellraiser, I don't mean to perpetuate any animosity, so don't take this the wrong way...but please stop quoting entire posts. It's very annoying and the "quote" loses it's effect.

throwing out the blanket statement that whatever freedom-restricting activity you're doing is in the name of children's welfare is a political move. anybody who spoke out against his plans (i.e. censorship of the entertainment and news industries) could then be labeled as 'anti-child.' it's a smart political move, but i think it's based at least 95\% in politics. if it really was religiously motivated, i think he'd be pushing to get prayer back into schools encouraging parents to take their kids to church or synagogue, that kind of stuff. instead he says he wants to help kids by getting violence off of tv and movies. it looks good as a clip on the 6 o'clock news, gets him some more votes, provides little room to attack his plans, and doesn't really do damn thing for kids.

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

And as for you Bozeman, there is a time and place for fighting and debating, a UBB forum is much better time and place than a war. I hate wars, I feel there is always a better way, but probably the better way will never be taken. That's why I advocate revolution and free thinking: most wars are a result in some way of a people being complacent too long, then reacting at the last minute. Actually they aren't but it makes for a good story, and I'm sure that some are.

Good point, Hellraiser, better a fight here than a war. I'd rather have everyone pissed off and arguing, rather than apathetic.

Homosexuality and prostitution are victimless, and should not be criminal. Drugs/alcohol and abortion are not necessarily victimless crimes. Drugs/alcohol are responsible for many deaths each year, and as for an abortion even if you don't believe the fetus is human, the parent(s) will have to live with the decision to have an abortion for the rest of their lives, so in a sense they can be victims to. Abortion is a touchy subject, and there is already a thread about that so I don't want to go into that now.

However, there is one thing that does not make any sense to me: a married woman needs to have her husband's input to get her tubes tied, but can get an abortion any time she wants without her husband's input. Shouldn't that be the other way around?

you're right.

But having the vast majority of the kids saying a prayer and you're not saying means you will get picked on. a lot. and that is harmful.. Kids are assholes. Thats the facts.

Also if you want to be free to pray in school, i bet you'd have a problem if i started praying to satan in front of your kid, even though you would be fine if i was praying to your god. Prayer, in any enforced attendance environment, is wrong. If i prayed to satan in front of your kids, you'd be pissed...and if i dont pray to the god that everyone else is praying to, i'll be picked on, cause highschool and below kids are jerks and assholes.
thats why prayer in school is wrong.

Also-Seperation of church and state merely means that church should not in any way influence state. thats all it means. no prayer in school has zip/zilch/nada/nothing to do with this.

------------------
Because email can be altered electronically, the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
i don't think lieberman's 'culture of carnage' is religiously motivated. maybe in a small part, but not entirely
throwing out the blanket statement that whatever freedom-restricting activity you're doing is in the name of children's welfare is a political move. anybody who spoke out against his plans (i.e. censorship of the entertainment and news industries) could then be labeled as 'anti-child.' it's a smart political move, but i think it's based at least 95\% in politics

it looks good as a clip on the 6 o'clock news, gets him some more votes, provides little room to attack his plans, and doesn't really do damn thing for kids.

---

damn, that was right on!

i kiss your ass (tell you everything you want to hear) and you vote for me, who cares if i lie, cheat and steal as long as i want what is right for the "kids"

[This message has been edited by pengu1nn (edited September 20, 2000).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
Sure, every president has been a Christian (with the exception of a Catholic Kennedy).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Observer:
I just found it rather amusing that you didn't consider Catholics to be Christian, when they were one of the founding Christian religions, if not the one for the western world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellraiser:
Catholicism is not exactly Christianity, but rather a muddling of Christian and Pagan beliefs. In fact, much of what is now considered Christianity is nothing like the origins of the religion; anyone who has ever studied the Bible and compared what is taught in the New Testament to what is practiced in most Christian circles knows the two are as different as salt and pepper. Much the same is true of almost every major religion; it is nothing like the way it was when it was founded. This evidences very much of the organic and changing nature of man.

---

Just thought I'd bring up a couple of points for everyone's edification.

Catholicism is indeed Christianity. In fact, Catholicism is the original Christian religion. That's why all other Christian religions are called Protestants; they "protested" something about the Catholic church and separated from it.

And true, you can make some correlation between Catholic practices and Pagan practices, particularly when it comes to the timing of our holidays. It's no coincidence that Christmas falls at the same time as the Wiccan holiday of yule, and that people still talk about sending "yuletide" greetings. Or, that All Soul's Day (aka Halloween) falls at the same time as the Wiccan holiday Samhain. By incorporating aspects of practices they already followed, it was easier for the early Christians to convert people to Christianity. But just as this can be said for Catholicism, it can be said for the Protestant Christian religions as well.

And of course there are differences in the way things were practiced at the founding of the Catholic church and now, and all times in between. Because just as you said, Hellraiser, nothing about mankind is static, so there's no reason to expect our religious practices to be that way.

As for drugs and alcohol being classified as victimless crimes: I think folks who don't think these are victimless crimes are inferring far to much from the term's connotative meaning. The unadulterated use of drugs and alcohol affects no one but the user. It is the aftereffect of drug abuse that leads to crime, negligent use of motor vehicles, and even the draining of tax dollars (when addicts use public resources to sustain the habit). But I was referring to mere drug use. Perhaps I should of been more specific.

I think if, on it's face, an act affects no one but the person who committed the act, it should be considered a civil liberty. Hence, I hold victimless crimes as civil liberties. If there's anything I hate, it's when my civil liberties are infringed upon because someone idiot abuses the privilege (see gun control and Columbine).

quote:

---

Originally posted by nautilus:
Just thought I'd bring up a couple of points for everyone's edification...That's why all other Christian religions are called Protestants; they "protested" something about the Catholic church and separated from it.

---

Exactly why I distinguished between the two in my earlier post.

They may have the same roots, but they are by no means 100\% similar. That's all.

yes, it sucks to be picked on, but it's a necessary evil of childhood.. at one time or another, we all go through it. the earlier kids learn to handle these things on their own, without someone removing every bit of adversity from their lives, the stronger they get. you can't sheild kids from everything and expect that they're going to turn into healthy adults, it just doesn't work that way.

kids who are taught to run crying every time someone picks on them grow up as victims. kids who are taught to either ignore it or stand up to it grow up as survivors. don't get me wrong, i'm not condoning emotional and mental abuse, but there's a certain amount of teasing that's normal to childhood, and removing it causes a very negative impact on a kid's ability to function in normal society when they grow up. generally, these are the kids who will expect everything to come easy to them, and become too emotionally crippled to deal with criticism. i knew a girl like this in high school. she got to college, got a B on a midterm paper and cried for three days because the professor had written on the paper that she'd 'missed the meaning' of the book she was supposed to be writing about. it really screwed her up, because she hadn't learned that people aren't always nice, she'd been too sheltered.

they don't call it the 'school of hard knocks' for nothing.

"`cause i'm the fuck that named you Sue."
------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

[This message has been edited by kuru (edited September 20, 2000).]

well, first id like to share something interesting that happened to me at school today. there was some sort of prayer circle going on outside before class today...i think its their way of protesting our protesting of the moment of silence...but i dont think they were christian/catholic, cause my super-religious friend was not in the group....i think they were cultists or somethin....anyway...

i agree, prayer should not be banned in school, and im not trying to say that it should be. however, setting aside time for people to pray (whether you face up to it or not) is wrong. youre suggesting that they deserve special consideration simply because they are religious. that would be the same as setting aside time for the tall people to go play basketball. its unfair, and it does make people stand out. my dad went to a public school (this was in the 50s) where christian/catholics got to leave school to go pray, while my dad (who was jewish) had to stay at school and do nothing. now if youre telling me that getting singled out because your ancestors lived in a different part of the world than some other peoples is fair, then you are seriously fucked up in the head. no one should be allowed a special consideration for anything permanent like that (temporary things are different, i.e. skipping gym class because of a broken leg).

quote:

---

Originally posted by nautilus:
Catholicism is indeed Christianity. In fact, Catholicism is the original Christian religion. That's why all other Christian religions are called Protestants; they "protested" something about the Catholic church and separated from it.

---

Not true. Catholicism was introduced by Constantine several hundred years after the time of Christ. Until that point, Christianity had been simply that: people following the teachings of Christ. Constantine had a dream in which he claimed to see a cross at the head of his army, so he announced to his empire that he had adopted Christianity. He merged with it the existing Roman beliefs so that the people would not have to change their holidays and practices, merely change the name of the gods they prayed to to the Christian God and the Saints, and the Mother of Christ. While it can be said that Catholicism is the first Organized religion based on Christianity, it is not Christianity, but rather a muddling of Christianity.

In the years to come, opposition to the harsh rule of the Catholic Church grew, and after the printing press was invented, and copies of the bible were available in different languages to the common people, many started to protest Catholicism, and the Protestants were born. Protestants are somewhat closer to the original Christians, but some influences from the Catholic Church still remain, such as some of the Holy Days, the idea of going to a Church and listening to a sermon, the robes that many pastors and ministers wear, the church buildings themselves, and many other aspects of Protestantism. Of course these are not the only branches of Christianity from its original form. There were groups along the way that came and went who reverted to the original form of Christianity, such as the Annabaptists, the Moravians, and a few others, and there are other sects that were formed based on Christianity and the teachings of someone else or a shared belief, such as the Mormons, the Menonites, the Amish, to name a few.

Thus as you can see, very few of those who call themselves Christians can be said to be Christians in the literal sense of the word, one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

And the very first Christians were in Antioch, read the book of Acts, that is where the first mention of the word "Christian" is. Those were the original Christians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
I agree, prayer should not be banned in school, and im not trying to say that it should be. however, setting aside time for people to pray (whether you face up to it or not) is wrong. youre suggesting that they deserve special consideration simply because they are religious. that would be the same as setting aside time for the tall people to go play basketball. its unfair, and it does make people stand out. my dad went to a public school (this was in the 50s) where christian/catholics got to leave school to go pray, while my dad (who was jewish) had to stay at school and do nothing. now if youre telling me that getting singled out because your ancestors lived in a different part of the world than some other peoples is fair, then you are seriously fucked up in the head. no one should be allowed a special consideration for anything permanent like that (temporary things are different, i.e. skipping gym class because of a broken leg).

---

I'd agree completely with that.

Except for one thing: if your religion dictates that three times a day you must face east and pray to your God, then you should be allowed out of school to pray when the time comes. To do otherwise would be to violate your freedom to exercise your religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
well, first id like to share something interesting that happened to me at school today. there was some sort of prayer circle going on outside before class today...i think its their way of protesting our protesting of the moment of silence...but i dont think they were christian/catholic, cause my super-religious friend was not in the group....i think they were cultists or somethin....anyway...

---

No, these weren't cultists. September 20th is a day (don't ask me how the date was chosen) on which Christian students throughout the world, regardless of denomination, meet together at school around the flagpole (I assume this is what happened at your school) to pray for their school and their country. I don't know the details or the origin of this "See you at the pole" day, but it is not associated with any single church or anything even remotely approaching a cult. In fact I would bet that some of the people in that "prayer circle" had never really met each other before today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellraiser:
Saying there is a place in which I cannot pray, or speak out loud to my god, is a definite violation of this. This amendment is definitely saying that Congress has no right to make a law establishing a state religion, or prohibiting my freedom to exercise my religion where and when I want to.
[...]
The thing here is the principle. If they can bypass the first amendment and ban prayer in school, the door has been opened for them to go so far as to ban all references to God in school, then ban all references to any religious figures in school, and so on and so forth until we no longer have any legal right to practice our religion (or lack thereof) freely.

---

If you had even a rudimentary understanding of what the courts have actually ruled about prayer in school, you would not be ranting about this. You do have the right to pray in school. The school, if it is a public school, does not have the right to lead, sponsor, encourage, or take any position regarding prayer. This is because a public school is part of the government (hence the word "public"). The only thing relating to prayer that the court has banned is when the (public) school is endorsing it, or when students are doing it in a way that makes other students feel threatened, and that the other students can't just walk out or leave if they don't want to participate.

Please don't talk unless you have a clue what you're talking about. Thank you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
Hellraiser, if this is in the middle of class, should the teacher and all the other kids have to wait 10 minutes for them to do this? or can they just like go out in the hall and not disrupt class? i dont think anyone else should really have to make so many exceptions, because when it gets to the point where other people's learning time is wasted, then its really becoming an infringment on their rights...

---

What do you think? What's wrong with them just going out quietly and not disrupting class? Besides, how is it an infringement on your rights to have a 10 minute break from class? The vast majority of kids would welcome it, but we can't do it because it's "violating their rights."

The point I've been getting at, is once the first law limiting any kind of freedom guaranteed by the constitution is made, the door is opened for "interpretation," and historically, more laws get made until freedom is no more than an idea bound up in regulations, rules and bylaws.

Nobody, before you start, read all the posts, it will save you a lot of trouble.

And while what you said may be true to a point, one does not actually have that much freedom in most schools. Example: an English teacher gets threatened that he will be fired because he kept a bible in his desk, and after the lecture, while the students were working on their assignments, he would quietly read it. Example #2: after someone at a school was shot and killed, a group of students got together to hold a quiet prayer vigil for their friend during the lunch hour: their vigil was interupted by a teacher who told them that they were not allowed to pray in school, and if they repeated their performance they would get detention. Both of these unconstitutional actions were so-called "justified" by the fact that prayer was banned in school.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellraiser:
What's wrong with them just going out quietly and not disrupting class? Besides, how is it an infringement on your rights to have a 10 minute break from class? The vast majority of kids would welcome it, but we can't do it because it's "violating their rights."

---

An important element of the law was brought up by several American legal pioneers, including the immortal John Marshall and Roscoe Pound: it is better to let 10 guilty men walk free than to wrongly punish 1 innocent person.

We can carry the same rationale over to the classroom: It is better to let 10 religious classmates wait until after school than subject one non-religious child to the burdens of other people's faith.

You continually make yourself out to be a hypocrite, my dear Hellraiser. You don't seem to see the folly in condoning freedom to practice religion while completely ignoring the freedom from religion . Quiet or not, taking time out of a class is disruptive, because it takes away from the function of a school - LEARNING. You don't go to school to pray, you go to learn. Sure, I know what you're thinking - school is mandatory, and prayer is a daily part of people's lives, so those people should have the right to pray in school since they are required to go there. Well, that's not the case. That's why we have parochial and private schools, as well as home study programs. To quote Eddie Murphey, "if you don't like it, get the fuck out."

The point is, if you want to practice your religion, do it somewhere other than school. Because I (and people like me) don't care for it. I (and people like me) don't want to hear about it. I (and people like me) don't want to see it.

quote:

---

Example: an English teacher gets threatened that he will be fired because he kept a bible in his desk, and after the lecture, while the students were working on their assignments, he would quietly read it. Example #2: after someone at a school was shot and killed, a group of students got together to hold a quiet prayer vigil for their friend during the lunch hour: their vigil was interupted by a teacher who told them that they were not allowed to pray in school, and if they repeated their performance they would get detention.

---

Did you fabricate this? I'd like to see some proof, like a newspaper clipping. But if you want to stick to anecdotal evidence, know this: When I went to high school, there was several Christian and Jewish organizations. No one stopped them from doing their thing. Of course, they did it outside of the class, in private (whether before, after, or during break periods). Certain teachers even led prayer groups, but no one but the voluntary participants would ever hear or see it.

THAT is how it should work. THAT is the spirit of the Constitution.

------------------
the_captain's_drinkin' _whiskey@the_throttle...
we're all doomed

[This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle (edited September 22, 2000).]

The one about the teacher who kept a bible was told to me by a good friend that I trust; the other was actually observed by myself and never made it into the newspaper, so there is no clipping.

There is no place in this country where you are guaranteed to not have to listen to what you don't want to, unless it be your own home. The only guarantee is that you are free to say what you want to. If you want to be completely free of all religious influence of any kind, first you better empty your wallet and use only credit cards, because all your money says "In God We Trust" on it and it clearly seems to be sanctioned by the government. "This note is legal tender for all debts, private and public." Now to me, that's more invasive than hearing a prayer at school; you aren't likely to see much prayer at school, but you are most likely to handle several hundred thousand pieces of currency or coin in your life that have this statement emblazoned on them.

Go ahead, believe what you want to about the constitution; the wording of it will not magically change, and it will still say, "Congress shall make no law..." Since you seem to hate me quoting full passages, I'll leave you with that. See? The constitution clearly states that no law is to be made! So all the laws in this country are unconstitutional. Let's just throw the whole damn government out the window anyways, because we are too lazy to get off our arses and see what rights we have, and fight for them.

If I am to be accused of anything, let it be that I fight for what I believe in. I'm sure you all do the same.

So before you go calling me a hypocrite, take a look at your own words. I do not call you hypocrite, even though in two places you expressed two contradictory opinions as your own, see in one of my above posts reference to that.

The way I feel about schools is, an education should be manditory, but schools should not be government run. Government is too inefficient; taxpayers are footing a bill of well over Ů,000 a year where I live for each child that goes to public school, yet most private schools in the area are less than half that, and the students that come out of those private schools in general have a much better education than the public school children. But don't get me started on all the changes I think should be made to our government and political systems. I've got plans that would cut taxes to less than 1/3 of what they are today, get rid of much unnecessary spending, and actually lower unemployment, but to implement them would require a major change in our society.

People today think, "the government should give us this, the government should help us do that, the goverment should make a law for this, the government should pay for that," and what they don't realize is that every one of those things is costing them money in the form of taxes, most of which they'll never see a benefit from anyways. The money goes to those who are to lazy to work, to pet projects of politicians, and in general a good deal gets wasted on bureaucracy.

Well that was a rather discontinous post, but then I never did hold much to convention.

I think I've made my stance very clear; less government control, and more responsibility on people will result in a great deal more freedom for you and me, and that's a result that I'd hope you'd be as pleased with as I'd be. Otherwise, get the fuck out of my country and go to some country where the government is bloated to 100 times the size it should be and controls every aspect of your life -- wait, that's this country isn't it? Damn. I guess I'll have to blow something up. How about I start with the IRS headquarters? That should do for starters. Then maybe the whole of DC, and all the other corrupt political centers of the world. Hell, why don't I blow us all to kingdom come, and let evolution create a new and better species that doesn't do so much damage to itself or the world it lives in as humans do. I'm sure the EPA would love that!

Of course now I'm just blowing smoke out my ass, but then, that's about all you did in about half the posts you made to this thread.

I'm not even going to try to justify what I've said further than this. If you can't do something as simple as read my previous posts and the constitution and point out the areas they are in contradiction to each other, you don't warant responding to.

And for future reference, don't assume that all that I write in a post is targeted at you personally. It's not. It's targeted at the whole damn country that just sits there while bit by bit it's freedom is taken away.

Note: I'm not nearly as argumentative as this in real life, but that's because I don't have a life. Go ahead and laugh, I'm used to it.

And the icon for this message pretty much shows how I felt about the whole thing. This entire thread is so damn humorous it's not even funny. /me deadpans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellraiser:
Tell me what your basis for calling me a hypocrite is, and I'll respond to your accusations ...And for future reference, don't assume that all that I write in a post is targeted at you personally. It's not. It's targeted at the whole damn country that just sits there while bit by bit it's freedom is taken away.

Note: I'm not nearly as argumentative as this in real life, but that's because I don't have a life

---

Honestly, neither am I. Perhaps its the anonymity of the Internet that brings out the quarrelsome side of me. Anyhow, to address your last post:

I agree, the government is taking many of our freedoms away. The biggest one I can think of is the right to bear arms. If I recall, you don't support the use of the 2nd amendment to promote gun ownership, do you? Anyhow, I do. I think owning weapons is a mandatory right of US citizens that is clearly spelled out by the Constitution. If you'd like to debate this point, I am more than willing to introduce my argument towards the matter.

Anyhow, you wanted to know why I called you a hypocrite. I used the word in the context of, "someone who preaches a certain tenet, but does not follow the rule in practice." Perhaps "illogical" would have been more fitting. The point I am trying to make is that you were advocating the right to pray in schools in your last post, due to people's freedom of religion. My point was that you are ignoring the freedom from religion. Let us say I am a memeber of a reliigon that does not believe in a God. (i,e-Confucionism) By having time put aside for Christian kids to pray in school, my beliefs are made subordinate. Atheists and agnostics should not have to have their class time infringed upon by kids who want to pray.

If your answer to this is "let everybody who want to pray have the opportunity," allow me to explain something about public schooling. You do not go to public school to pray. You go to public school to learn. I thought I spelled this point out rather clearly in my last post. You seem to think that because people have the right to choose and practice a religion, it can pervade every aspect of their life, include parts that affect others. I disagree.

This country affords you many freedoms, but there are places where these freedoms need to operate. Religion is a private freedom. Speech is a public freedom.

Oh, and as for your dollar bill point - that has nothing to do with the matter. The only thing I notice when I look at money is the number written on it. "In God We Trust" is a quote by the person that first decided to put that phrase on our money. If you start putting banners up at public schools that say "in God we trust," then we've got a problem. I hope you are astute enough to see the difference between the two, because it's Saturday night, and I don't want to waste my fun time explaining this. Peace out.

------------------
the_captain's_drinkin' _whiskey@the_throttle...
we're all doomed

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
Religion is a private freedom. Speech is a public freedom.

---

Yes, but praying in school could easily be seen as a form of free speech. After all, if you aren't trying to force your viewpoint on anyone else, and you aren't disrupting anything, what is wrong with prayer in schools? Certainly the school itself should not advocate or force prayer on the students, but saying "You are not allowed to pray in school," is just as bad. Either way, you're forcing some people to act against their beliefs.

that's not how freedom works. you wanna be free to say what's on your mind, you hafta be HEAR what's on other people's minds. freedom is costly, and it comes at the price of hearing things that we don't like, disagree with, or are offended by.

i don't remember who said it, but some apparently very wise person said 'i may hate what you say, but i'll die defending your right to say it.'

so all of you who are clamoring to shut the christians up, to tell them they can't pray where you might hear them, remember this. one day there'll be a group who doesn't like what YOU say, and then what are you gonna do when they turn to the government and ask to have your rights taken away?

------------------
kuru
'if your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd kill you in your sleep.' -frank zappa

Sithiee- Not exactly how I'd put it, but good point.

Anyways, hellraiser, you say that if a person has a reliegeon that says he must bow to god 10 minutes three times a day he should be allowed to do that at school?
WTF? what if his religeon told him to call old women "cuntbags" caould he then call his teachers that if htey were old women

heheh terrible analogy but i think my point is clear. People praying is fine. your school saying "lets all pray" is not, and causes unnessesary ripping upon kids who dont believe, even if the school lets them leave the auditorium.
If i can pray to satan while you pray to christ, that'd be okay...but i cant, and thats more bullshit.

------------------
Because email can be altered electronically, the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Althornin:
I dont think many intelligent people would disagree with most of what you just said, kuru. Our freedom is important. But i dont care if people make fun of kids all the time: it doesnt make it alright for a school sponsored enforced thing like prayer to cause the same. You go with your "school of hard knocks", look what happens: sick twisted fucks gun down their schoolmates.

---

No, the "school of hard knocks" keeps that from happening. School shootings are directly related to the increase of sheltering. How many children have been made fun of their entire lives, and how many of them shoot their classmates? Had Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris not been protected from mental anguish by the early school system and their parents, the shock of high school - not even as hard and unpleasant as real life - would not have even existed. You have to learn to put up with failure and insults in life, or you won't get far.

Normally children form defenses for their egos because children always make fun of each other - I did, I'm sure you did too. What do you do when someone calls you names? When you remove that early conditioning, they're completely defenseless when they get out from the protection, and bad things happen to them. Sometimes to the people around them, too.

I will solve the gun problem by allowing anyone with an IQ over 150 to shoot anyone with an IQ under 150 for any reason whatsoever.

I will solve the illegal drug problem by legalizing all of 'em.

Any foreign countries that have a problem with us will be told to fuck off. If they persist they get nuked. End of story. BOOM!

This message has been edited by damien_s_lucifer on September 25, 2000 at 11:42 PM

i don't have time (i'm at work) to look it up, but i do belive some where it says that we can use all of our "rights/freedoms" anywhere as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. correct me if i'm wrong there.

i want! you to pray to your god. i do. But when your in school, you are on "my time/your time" to learn, not to pray. do it before/after school (see where i mentioned this above)

religion in any other form that private is way to discrimate, and cause unjust harm. ex. "he left the room when we prayed today, he must be bad". sure, that example is over used but is it not true? everyone gets discrimated against at some point, life is a bitch, but kids don't usually have a choice in the matter at hand, as their parents "force" their religion on the kid. same goes for black people i guess sense they didn't pick their skin(another post, another time) same concept.

i have mormon friends (seems they are the majority of my friends) and christian friends, and other friends that aren't nessary to describe right now (not that they arent importiant) but the mormon friends aren't allowed to stay the night with the christians solely cause they are mormon.

it just like saying your white so you can't have black friends. speaking of that i watched a "special" on the kkk (what a bunch of maroons!) and i'm sickened by the fact that the frist of those tards came from a small town in my homestate! (i say we burn them at the stake) White Power!

This message has been edited by pengu1nn on September 26, 2000 at 01:07 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellraiser:
And while what you said may be true to a point, one does not actually have that much freedom in most schools. Example: an English teacher gets threatened that he will be fired because he kept a bible in his desk, and after the lecture, while the students were working on their assignments, he would quietly read it. Example #2: after someone at a school was shot and killed, a group of students got together to hold a quiet prayer vigil for their friend during the lunch hour: their vigil was interupted by a teacher who told them that they were not allowed to pray in school, and if they repeated their performance they would get detention. Both of these unconstitutional actions were so-called "justified" by the fact that prayer was banned in school.

---

These actions were not justified in any way. If those studens had contacted the ACLU, they would have won, without a doubt. The teacher was stupid. The teacher has no right to tell someone not to pray, just as he/she has no right to tell someone to pray. It's unfortunate that many people think that prayer is banned from school in all forms. If you read the acutal cases, you will see that this is far from the truth.