67% of americans believe in heaven and 73% in hell!

[RetiredGySgt]

Secularism means that I can hold any religious belief that I like I just cannot base legislation upon those beliefs. Legislation is supposed to be based on rationalism not irrationalism sense it is Man who is sovereign not god. Conservatives do not accept that since a large part of Christianity centers around proselytizing ergo the need for such things as school prayer.

Largely they are nothing more than sick fucks with no idea what they are trying to destroy. It really is a pity...

Provide us the relevant portions of the Constitution that prove your point. Come on, the Document is not that big, surely you can provide us the magic text that supports your ignorance?

 

[PeterS]

Go ahead quote the relevant passage or passages from the Constitution.

Why do you need one? If I believe in vampirism and can find a plurality of legislators to agree can I legislate the drinking of blood? Do I need a specific clause to tell me no?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why do you need one? If I believe in vampirism and can find a plurality of legislators to agree can I legislate the drinking of blood? Do I need a specific clause to tell me no?

Depends on how you intend to get the blood. I can think of legal ways to obtain blood that would not violate anyone else's rights and so would be legal under the Constitution.

Once again, you claim that religion can not be used to make legislation, provide proof. The Constitution is the document that determines what guidelines must be followed. Go ahead provide us your evidence.

 

[PeterS]

Provide us the relevant portions of the Constitution that prove your point. Come on, the Document is not that big, surely you can provide us the magic text that supports your ignorance?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It seems very clear to me--if I legislate based on religious belief I am making a law respecting an establishment of religion. If I do not legislate based on religious belief then it becomes impossible for Congress to make such laws.

Where are you having a problem understanding?

 

[KittenKoder]

Separation of Church and State: Is It In The Constitution? If It's Not in the Constitution, then it Doesn't Exist
Church / State Separation: Myths and Misconceptions
*evil grin* Try again Sgt-whatever. The first is the explanation that I already gave, the second is even MORE info on why the xtians are all wrong about the government.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh, and Peter also said it. Sorry Peter.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It seems very clear to me--if I legislate based on religious belief I am making a law respecting an establishment of religion. If I do not legislate based on religious belief then it becomes impossible for Congress to make such laws.

Where are you having a problem understanding?

Wrong again. Establishment of Religion means just what it says. No single religious entity can be chosen , no law enforced that selects said religious entity.

Now explain the second part? How is it "legal" to deny a member of the legislature the "freedom" of their religion while creating, voting on or signing legislation?

You have made an attempt to twist this into what it is not. Any sane person can see that. Once again there is no "separation of church and State". Or do you now plan to bring charges against the US Congress for having a Preacher read a prayer before each day of session?

Perhaps you plan to sue the US military for having clergy as officers and part of every command? Maybe you can sue the Fed for the words " In God we Trust" on our money?

Might want to consider bringing a complaint against the Supreme Court for the Religious art work it has all over the building?

I can go on and on.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wrong again. Establishment of Religion means just what it says. No single religious entity can be chosen , no law enforced that selects said religious entity.

Now explain the second part? How is it "legal" to deny a member of the legislature the "freedom" of their religion while creating, voting on or signing legislation?

You have made an attempt to twist this into what it is not. Any sane person can see that. Once again there is no "separation of church and State". Or do you now plan to bring charges against the US Congress for having a Preacher read a prayer before each day of session?

Perhaps you plan to sue the US military for having clergy as officers and part of every command? Maybe you can sue the Fed for the words " In God we Trust" on our money?

Might want to consider bringing a complaint against the Supreme Court for the Religious art work it has all over the building?

I can go on and on.

Actually, another flaw in your realization, most of that artwork is not religious. The xtians just 'claimed' it. Most of it was done by pagan artists, as are most of the paintings in the chapels in Rome for the Catholics. Also, the military has to now offer clergy to almost all religions, even muslim, because they WERE sued already, so that point is moot. The money was printed, and most of it still is, by banks who put that phrase on there of their own accord, currency was a private institution. I am assuming by your lack of simple historical knowledge that you are not really retired.

 

[editec]

I suspect history will be unkind to Tony Blair. In his naievete he thought he was dealing with a rational US administration. He wasn't. They were are/are lunatics.

I can't help but LIKE Tony Blair.

He seems so damned rational.

Often wrong, but he can at least explain WHY he went wrong, you know what I mean?

I expect those Ukers who pay more attention than I do to the particulars of his administration might be able to educate me about who he really is, but I used to love to watch him on CSPAN when he'd stand up there defending his policies with other members of Parliment.

As much as I often chide England for its dismal history, I think I'd have been far more comfortable living under a parlimentary system than what American's are saddled with.

At least it is obvious that Englanders don't HATE the intellectual approach to problem solving.

 

[PeterS]

Wrong again. Establishment of Religion means just what it says. No single religious entity can be chosen , no law enforced that selects said religious entity.

How can you pass law based on religious belief and not be selecting said religion?

Now explain the second part? How is it "legal" to deny a member of the legislature the "freedom" of their religion while creating, voting on or signing legislation?

When you pass laws based on religious belief you deny the rights of those who do not hold those beliefs. What isn't legal is to force your religious beliefs on others...which is what you are attempting to do.

You have made an attempt to twist this into what it is not. Any sane person can see that. Once again there is no "separation of church and State". Or do you now plan to bring charges against the US Congress for having a Preacher read a prayer before each day of session?

How is that legislating religious belief?

Perhaps you plan to sue the US military for having clergy as officers and part of every command? Maybe you can sue the Fed for the words " In God we Trust" on our money?

How is that legislating religious belief?

Might want to consider bringing a complaint against the Supreme Court for the Religious art work it has all over the building?

How is that legislating religious belief?

I can go on and on.

About things that have zero to do with legislating religious belief. Knock yourself out...

 

[KittenKoder]

Peter, I think he finally gave up. Wondering if it was the links I provided which state exactly what you have been telling him or if he finally realized how much of a moron he sounds. But he hasn't posted in awhile.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Michael why are you such a prick?

sometimes you make really valid points but you make it impossible, even for those of us who might agree with you sometimes, to rally behind you because you are such an arrogant fuck.

I believe in heaven

I don't think heaven is the pearly gates guarded by Peter with trumpets and angels but I do believe there is a place were I will go after I die and live in eternity in God's love and it will be peaceful and beautiful.

I believe in hell

I don't think the devil has horns and a pitch fork. I don't think there are people chained burning for eternity. I think it's reserved for the most vile and disgusting people who commit henious acts against mankind and I think it's a miserable place where people suffer the same atrocities they themselves commit, over and over for eternity.

That might be naive but it's how I reconcile the fact that people actually get away with horrible things and seemingly pay no price for their actions... It brings me comfort to believe that they will be made to pay at some point and any justic here on earth would pale in comparison to what they will get in hell.[/QUOTE]



Is that the same God ..who was so compassionate and forgiving ...as Jesus... or is that the evil Old Testament God?
Or is it Harry Potter?

 

[Diuretic]

Europeans have learned to march in lock-step with their governments over the centuries. You won't find too many Europeans that believe in Heaven or Hell because that would mean there is something more powerful than the government they revere. Those who wanted freedom, including religious freedom, came to America.

Europe - you mean all those different countries on the landmass? They all behaved in the same manner? There was no French Revolution? There was no Commune?

You should be very careful about making sweeping statements which are inaccurate.

 

[Diuretic]

Ahh yes more ignorant pap from a non US citizen.....

Well someone has to break the news to you Rock

 

[xsited1]

Europe - you mean all those different countries on the landmass? They all behaved in the same manner? There was no French Revolution? There was no Commune?

You should be very careful about making sweeping statements which are inaccurate.

I'm referring to members of the European Union.

 

[IndyVoter&Rockr]

You know most Christians aren't crazy zealots. The reason they appear to be is Aethiest on T.V. want them to appear that way. Take the new Religolous commercial where Bill Mayer is talking to the guy dressed up as Jesus. Bill just tries to make him look stupid, and that is all Bill ever does to Christians. That in turn pisses the Christians off, which makes them scream and holler a bunch of crazy shit. Why can't both Christians and Aetheist shut the hell up, because neither of them know what is going to happen after we die. This is America people should have a right to believe what they want without being insulted and called crazy. By the way I am a Christian and I don't scream nonsense. Nor would I let my beliefs get in the way of me making rational decisions. However, I have to say almost all atheist and christians are part of the problem. Just because they let their beliefs dictate their actions, and yes atheist do the same thing. They all need to shut up and let people live their lives and believe in what they want.