Worse case election scenarios...
-
Unfortunately, he didn't stop writing right there. :sigh: -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Unfortunately, he didn't stop writing right there. Indeed. The idea of free speech is a great thing, I just tend to think that the it's also assumed that someone who would speak will also have their brain engaged. Of course, I shouldn't be one to speak myself! Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog Hunt The Wumpus RealDevs.Net
-
palbano wrote: I have 3 rifles 2 shotguns 2 handguns. Ah, but you only got 2 hands, I assume... :~ "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: Ah, but you only got 2 hands, I assume... No :( Sadly I only have the one left. The other was lost in a tragic keyboard accident years ago. But what does that have to do with being a "gun hating Democrat"?
-- signature under construction --
-pete
-
Im an Aussie and I cant stand Bush. How anyone could watch or listen to him speak and think that he has any creditablity I dont know. He is just so fake. I think that the US needs a greater seperation between the church and the state. A countries leaders should not make reference to religion. I am not religious at all and comments like "May god bless America" sound as stupid to me as "It is written in the Koran" or "it is every Muslims duty to wage war...." or "come and get a free personality and iq test" from the Scientologits
Jorgen is correct, I do consider what you are suggesting to be essentially the estbablishment of a religion. You are advocating repressing religious sentiment in order for the state to promote and advance your own, secular, moral agenda. The government has no more business promoting secularism than it does the promotion of any other set of religious principles. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Jorgen is correct, I do consider what you are suggesting to be essentially the estbablishment of a religion. You are advocating repressing religious sentiment in order for the state to promote and advance your own, secular, moral agenda. The government has no more business promoting secularism than it does the promotion of any other set of religious principles. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
No im saying that the government should not be making references to an old fictional book even if it is a good story
No, you want the state to repress religion and to promote your own morality. Pure and simple. You are advocating less, not more separation of church and state. You just want the "church" to be yours. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
No, you want the state to repress religion and to promote your own morality. Pure and simple. You are advocating less, not more separation of church and state. You just want the "church" to be yours. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Josh Gray wrote: so you know what i think and what i want. Can you tell me when ill next need a sh&t? You very clearly expressed your thoughts, it wasn't difficult to interpret them. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Josh Gray wrote: so you know what i think and what i want. Can you tell me when ill next need a sh&t? You very clearly expressed your thoughts, it wasn't difficult to interpret them. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
jan larsen wrote: Ah, but you only got 2 hands, I assume... No :( Sadly I only have the one left. The other was lost in a tragic keyboard accident years ago. But what does that have to do with being a "gun hating Democrat"?
-- signature under construction --
-pete
So your'e going to fire 7 weapons with one arm?, or rather that would be 7 arms and one hand, but you catch my point. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
So your'e going to fire 7 weapons with one arm?, or rather that would be 7 arms and one hand, but you catch my point. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
jan larsen wrote: but you catch my point. Well I wouldn't bet on it, but I have believed it was humor, am I right? :-D
-- signature under construction --
-pete
right :) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
No, you want the state to repress religion and to promote your own morality. Pure and simple. You are advocating less, not more separation of church and state. You just want the "church" to be yours. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
He actually said there shouldn't BE any religion. I know what you mean, but the purposed absence of religion, is not the same as promoting a single religion which is how it is now. And I guess you will now use the arguments like 'But the Christianity is deep in the American culture' or something like that. But even in Denmark where Christianity is actually written into our laws, and the church gets a percentage of the tax money, it would be unheard of for the government to mention God in any other words than 'God save the queen'. I guess its more easy for us to handle though, because we got more than two parties to vote for you see ;P, so all the Christian nuts are gathered in one party, and they are always balancing on the limit for getting any influence in the parlament. I don't know where the other religions go for support, but I guess they are spread over the left parties. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
He actually said there shouldn't BE any religion. I know what you mean, but the purposed absence of religion, is not the same as promoting a single religion which is how it is now. And I guess you will now use the arguments like 'But the Christianity is deep in the American culture' or something like that. But even in Denmark where Christianity is actually written into our laws, and the church gets a percentage of the tax money, it would be unheard of for the government to mention God in any other words than 'God save the queen'. I guess its more easy for us to handle though, because we got more than two parties to vote for you see ;P, so all the Christian nuts are gathered in one party, and they are always balancing on the limit for getting any influence in the parlament. I don't know where the other religions go for support, but I guess they are spread over the left parties. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: He actually said there shouldn't BE any religion. Assuming I am reading Stan’s reply correctly and I am also stating my belief --> There is no such thing as no religion. As Stan said "The government has no more business promoting secularism than it does the promotion of any other set of religious principles." Jefferson’s words "Separation of Church and State" only appear in a private letter and are now very open to interpretation. The US Constitution states there will be no law respecting an establishment of religion. The desire to have secularism the established religion would violate that. Be a person a common citizen or the President, they are free to have their religion and not be oppressed because of it. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
jan larsen wrote: He actually said there shouldn't BE any religion. Assuming I am reading Stan’s reply correctly and I am also stating my belief --> There is no such thing as no religion. As Stan said "The government has no more business promoting secularism than it does the promotion of any other set of religious principles." Jefferson’s words "Separation of Church and State" only appear in a private letter and are now very open to interpretation. The US Constitution states there will be no law respecting an establishment of religion. The desire to have secularism the established religion would violate that. Be a person a common citizen or the President, they are free to have their religion and not be oppressed because of it. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: There is no such thing as no religion. Eh?..., personally I don't believe in any Deity, it's called Atheism. Believing that there is no God(s), is not replacing God(s) with Nothing. It is assuming that there really is nothing out there where God(s) are supposed to reign, nada, zip, pure emptiness. I don't worship Nothing, there isn't anything to worship. It's actually a kind of Bush'ism, 'with us or against us', 'yes or no', '1 or 0'. You believe that I 'am with You' in another way, or that My 'no' is a jes, or that my '0' is 0.9. But there really weren't any of those options: I simply do not think there are any Deities. Belief is not religion, it is not about worship or sacrifice or endless sessions of prayer. Religion requires belief, but it is an aggregation. Belief is not an abstraction of Religion, and does not require any moral codex or rituals. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
He actually said there shouldn't BE any religion. I know what you mean, but the purposed absence of religion, is not the same as promoting a single religion which is how it is now. And I guess you will now use the arguments like 'But the Christianity is deep in the American culture' or something like that. But even in Denmark where Christianity is actually written into our laws, and the church gets a percentage of the tax money, it would be unheard of for the government to mention God in any other words than 'God save the queen'. I guess its more easy for us to handle though, because we got more than two parties to vote for you see ;P, so all the Christian nuts are gathered in one party, and they are always balancing on the limit for getting any influence in the parlament. I don't know where the other religions go for support, but I guess they are spread over the left parties. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: the purposed absence of religion, is not the same as promoting a single religion But, in fact, it would be. In the absence of religion the state becomes the only source of moral authority for the individual to appeal to. For all practical purposes, the state must become the church in order to provide a source of moral authority. Secularism (or humanism) has as well developed a set of moral principles as any religion. For the state to in any way compel a person to observe a code of secular morality in opposition to their own code of religious moral authority is just as bad as the state compelling a secularist to observe a given religious code of ethics. The state should be morally neutral in all things - that is what 'separation of church and state' is really all about. A secular state is just as bad as a religious state in that it is using its power and authority to promote one, and only one, moral agenda. In truth, the U.S. has had from its inception the most advanced statement of separation of church and state of any society on the planet. Not only does our consitution require that the legislative branch make no law regarding the establishment of any religion it also requires that the same body make no law regarding the free exercise of religion. Therefore, the state cannot establish a religion but it also can in no way interfere with the practice of religion. As a nation, we have remained true to that doctrine until the last few decades as the state, at the behest of liberalism, has began the promotion of secularism over religion in society at large. The irony of it all is that the political group screaming loudest for 'separation of church and state' has been the one most active in undermining it. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
jan larsen wrote: the purposed absence of religion, is not the same as promoting a single religion But, in fact, it would be. In the absence of religion the state becomes the only source of moral authority for the individual to appeal to. For all practical purposes, the state must become the church in order to provide a source of moral authority. Secularism (or humanism) has as well developed a set of moral principles as any religion. For the state to in any way compel a person to observe a code of secular morality in opposition to their own code of religious moral authority is just as bad as the state compelling a secularist to observe a given religious code of ethics. The state should be morally neutral in all things - that is what 'separation of church and state' is really all about. A secular state is just as bad as a religious state in that it is using its power and authority to promote one, and only one, moral agenda. In truth, the U.S. has had from its inception the most advanced statement of separation of church and state of any society on the planet. Not only does our consitution require that the legislative branch make no law regarding the establishment of any religion it also requires that the same body make no law regarding the free exercise of religion. Therefore, the state cannot establish a religion but it also can in no way interfere with the practice of religion. As a nation, we have remained true to that doctrine until the last few decades as the state, at the behest of liberalism, has began the promotion of secularism over religion in society at large. The irony of it all is that the political group screaming loudest for 'separation of church and state' has been the one most active in undermining it. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan Shannon wrote: But, in fact, it would be. In the absence of religion the state becomes the only source of moral authority for the individual to appeal to. No, I don't believ that. I think morality as we know it, is able to stand on it's own two, or whatever, feet. All religions hijack ethics and morality, and promote it like it wouldn't be there if not for Jahve, Allah or Odin, but morality is an inherent part of being a human, for some hints on that you could read 'The generous human' by Thor Nørretranders. It it's translated of course :) Now, I got to go, one of the twins are screaming... "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus