Alabama State House?

[nezzyjean]

[color=silver] [size=0] What is your opinion about the Ten Comandments Statue being moved from the Alabama State house? I can see why it has offended some people by being there, because, it is hypocrosy to beleive that everyone in this country is christian. But it seems that society today is trying to rid itself of any hints of christianity...first with that whole debate about the pledge of allegiance...now with this whole statue thing....well its been on the news for the last couple of days in my town...and now i guess there are protestors sitting outside of the state house....so I was wondering where do you stand on this whole issue?[/color] [/size]

[Justin]

I want it removed.

Now, I have more than proven in this place my fervent dedication to Christ and His cause, however, this is NOT His cause.

The Christians protesting this are accomplishing nothing but wasting their own energy--energy they could expend spreading the Good News. But no, they'd never [i]preach[/i] God's love to anyone--Heaven forbid that they be led to do [i]that[/i]. But it's no problem to openly defy authority(a sin in itself), and to make the rest of us look like idiots.

You see, the Bible teaches [i]uncoditional submission to any and [b]all[/i] authority[/i]. That means, having a sbmissive attitude to [i]all[/i] established authority.

The Bible also teaches obediance to [i]every[/i] authority--so long as that authority does not ask you to violate the Word of God. And removing a rock from a courthouse does not violate the Word.

This judge is himself in sin. And I do not condone his actions.

People need to get a real ministry. This accomplishes nothing.

-Justin

[Patronus]

[size=1][b]I seriously want it removed.

Christianity has no right to be included in government. I mean, come on, not [i]everyone[/i] agrees with it, including me. It goes along with 'Religion shall not be taught in Schools."

In my high school, there is a picture of Jesus above the door. It is seriously annoying and should be taken out. It has no right being in the school, just as the statue has no right being where it was. Religion is not to be forced upon anybody, and should not be constituted in a lawful place.

Well, that's my point.

Leh[/b][/size]

[eleanor]

[size=1] I don't care, but it's better for it to be removed. The constitution talks about freedom of religion, and there's a Ten Commandments statue in front of a state house.

[b]Christians who think the removal is stupid:[/b] Would you like it if there was a Satan worshiper sign in front of your state's courthouse? No.

It's ridiculous that one would assume that since most of America is Christian--Let's build statues of Jesus while we're at it! Woopee.......no, I don't think so.

P.S. I don't like saying the Pledge of Allegiance at all. [/size]

[Hbomb]

I am for it to stay. Separation of church and state is totally screwed up. I gotta admire the Alabama chief justice for standing up for the cause. It is true that the US is a melting pot with people of different origins, races, and religions, and if it were something related to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion, I'd still support its staying put.

The separation of church and state is screwed up. It's total hypocracy when the federal courts rule to remove the monument, but "In God We Trust" is still printed on the money.

Oh, and I'm not even that religous.

-H (yes, I'm still around)

[Semjaza]

I don't see what it affects. Is some judge or lawyer going to walk to the courthouse, see this statue and decide to change their thought process on a case? I severely doubt it.

The judge is obviously religious as it is. Removing some statue isn't going to change how he works. People can get as worked up about it as they want. It won't change anything. Instead of worrying about real problems, they take this up as their latest cause.

[Transtic Nerve]

The whole idea is the whole ideal behind it... like I have in my sig... Religion has no place in our government, and the court system is our government, thus, no sole religion should have any show in it. Therefor, it should, needs to be, and will be removed.

By keeping it there, it is showing SOME corrospondance between Christianity or Judaism and the government, which under our constitution CANNOT exist. Religion in the United States is defined as a personal cause... Not something that needs to be taken in by the public majority via the government. Government doesn't need to have any part of religion, no matter what denomination whoever may be. It's their personal business, not their job.

Under the Bush administration, this country has been becoming more and more a Christian state. And under the Bush administration has this country finally looked at itself as true as it should be. We banned sodemy laws, we had the whole "One Nation Under God" debate, and now this. Bush continues to use Christianity in backing his stand on issues in America, and this simply cannot go. The only reason he gets away with it is cause some Muslims ran 2 planes into big buildings and Bush was there to do something about it instead of stand back... If not, then everyone would be jumping down his throat like they should be. He's a terrible leader and a terrible representation of the United States, and people continue to wonder why people hate us? Anyway, thats not the topic here.

[TheShinje]

[size=1] I want it removed. Simply for the same reasons Justin pointed out. This court Judge is in sin by refusing to submit to authority, authority that doesn't violate the word of God. The all night prayer vigils that the protesters hold seem impressive yes. But it is entirely hypocritical.

So I say yes for removing it. It's not up to the state to show up one religion over all, it's up to the people to decide what they want. [/size]

[Justin]

I want to say one thing: I'm a Spirit-filled, holy-rollin', preacher of the Gospel. That is my number-one cause, when it comes to people, on this earth--preaching the Good News.

And therein lies my problem with all this. These people holding these prayer vigils could be praying for the lost, or for wisdom, or for any of a whole list of other, more productive causes.

Keeping a two-ton rock in the courthouse accomplishes nothing for the Lord. The ton of money spent on it could've bought a ton of Bibles to be handed out to those who've never read one.

This is all is so meaningless and disapointing. Judge Roy has lost more than just his statue, and he'll reap what he here sows.

As for Bush's bringing Christianity into his administration, that I support. As long a he keeps praying, I'll keep saying 'Rock on'. The best leaders are servants.

-Justin

[DeathBug]

The Godrock, as I call it, should be moved. However, I am very specific in my reasons for wanting it moved.

I believe the judge has the right to express his religion however he wishes, but sadly, he choose to do it on *state* land. Therefore, he violates the seperation clause.

However, what bugs me is that people misinterpret the Seperation of church and state clause. It exists solely so the government does not spend money or resources on something that will not benifit the whole of society. It's not about tolerating all religion or tolerating none at all, it's about the almighty dollar.

BTW, because oit was brought up, America is, in fact, a judeo-christian state; it was founded by men who were very strongly christian, and the majority of the population defines themselves as christian. Whether this is right or wrong is up for debate, but that would be wildly off-topic. Just be aware of the way things are.

However, I've noted that only Judeo-Christian displays of religion gain notority in the media. Hmmm...

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i]
[B]
As for Bush's bringing Christianity into his administration, that I support. As long a he keeps praying, I'll keep saying 'Rock on'. The best leaders are servants[/B][/QUOTE]

He should be serving the people of the United States, not God, as president of this country. It's not in his job description. He needs not to do it. It is not in our founding right to bring religion into any governmental activities. It says so in the constitution, which is what this country is based on, and to not follow it is to be not American.

As for the argument this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ways. Yes in a sense, because that was pretty much the only two religions prominant in this world. It wasn't founded on Muslim ideals or it'd be more like the middle east. It was founded on what i consider COMMON SENSE. Every government in this world has laws against killing, against crime, against many of what America has laws and values for. But alot of those other countries aren't Judeo-Christian countries.... Japan certaily isn't yet they have many of the same laws America has... it's common sense, it has nothing to do with religion. And religion has no part in government. We are not a theocracy. If you want a theocracy, go somewhere else. This is exactly why this statue should be and will be removed. It's ridiculous how the people continue to ignore the constitution. What a great place.

[James]

[color=#707875]The judge who wanted it to stay is basically a religious zealot. The monument is technically illegal, as has been stated by 9 other federal judges.

I don't know what the problem is. Removal of the object doesn't somehow diminish religion in the eyes of the public. And it doesn't change the freedoms with which religious people can practice their beliefs. It's mostly just a question of a legal technicality more than anything else.

So, I personally don't think it's a big deal. People who claim that it's a big deal seem to be the same people who are desperate to instate religion in government. As long as this action doesn't impede the practice of religion (and it doesn't), I don't know why anyone who advocates civil liberties can complain.

[/color]

[Justin]

That's where you're mistaken, Chris. Any Christian's first obligation is to God. If he turns from that, he is better off never having become a Christian. You also said something once, in another topic, about it was no one's business to preach-you're wrong there too, lol. Christians are [i]required[/i] to preach the Good News to the nations. You can argue however you want, but being the faith-blinded idiotic fool that I am, who would you have me listen to: You, or God Almighty?

I wouldn't call this guy a religious zealot. I'm almost willing to say that he's only trying to get sympathetic attention. However, I do not know him, so I cannot say.

If he is serious, it's is exactly as I said before: He's ignorant of the Scripture. As are so many 'Christians' in the Western World these days. It's a sad thing; but that's ok. God's purging His church, and those who truly have Grace on them(and those who are yet to recieve it, but ready) are about to get a revival of the Spirit. That revelation is why I'm not so aggravated by the topic a before.

Anyway, it' is [i]gone[/i] now, last I heard. At least from such a public scene. It was doomed to begin with.

-Justin

[Patronus]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i]
[B] Christians are [i]required[/i] to preach the Good News to the nations. [/b][/quote]

[size=1][b]Preaching should [i]stay[/i] in churches and shouldn't be sitting in the Court of Law.[/b][/size]

[Stuart]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Leh [/i]
[B][size=1][b]I seriously want it removed.

Christianity has no right to be included in government. I mean, come on, not [i]everyone[/i] agrees with it, including me. It goes along with 'Religion shall not be taught in Schools."
[/b][/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=darkred][size=1]I cant belive you feel so strong about that... I dont care what happens to it.. Doesnt bother me, I dont care really.. about anything that goes on. And same goes for school Im cool with a thing of Jesus above the door or whatever its all a opinon really. Im just surprised at the people who think so negitive about it.[/color][/size]

[Patronus]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hack Helba [/i]
[B][color=darkred][size=1]I cant belive you feel so strong about that... I dont care what happens to it.. Doesnt bother me, I dont care really.. about anything that goes on. And same goes for school Im cool with a thing of Jesus above the door or whatever its all a opinon really. Im just surprised at the people who think so negitive about it.[/color][/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1][b]Believing in Jesus is religion, therefore they are trying to tell us Chrisitianity is the right religion, and schools are not places to teach religion.[/b][/size]

[Stuart]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Leh [/i]
[B][size=1][b]Believing in Jesus is religion, therefore they are trying to tell us Chrisitianity is the right religion, and schools are not places to teach religion.[/b][/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=darkred][size=1]Do they teach you it? or is it just the poster thing? I can see if there teaching you a bad thing, but having a picture somewhere shouldnt be a problem. Its all part of your religion really, I dont have one ha so It doesnt matter AT all to me... But for some people that feel very strong about religion than yeah it would bother you[/color][/size]

[Patronus]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hack Helba [/i]
[B][color=darkred][size=1]Do they teach you it? or is it just the poster thing? I can see if there teaching you a bad thing, but having a picture somewhere shouldnt be a problem. Its all part of your religion really, I dont have one ha so It doesnt matter AT all to me... But for some people that feel very strong about religion than yeah it would bother you[/color][/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1][b]I'm not Christian.

It still shouldn't be there, they're influencing students.[/b][/size]

[GinnyLyn]

*quietly waits for the entire tangible ecomonic representation to be made-over*

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i]
[B]That's where you're mistaken, Chris. Any Christian's first obligation is to God. If he turns from that, he is better off never having become a Christian. You also said something once, in another topic, about it was no one's business to preach-you're wrong there too, lol. Christians are [i]required[/i] to preach the Good News to the nations. You can argue however you want, but being the faith-blinded idiotic fool that I am, who would you have me listen to: You, or God Almighty?[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't say that it's not his job as a Christian to not preach, I'm saying, as President, it is your duty, your perogative, your JOB to be a servant to the people. Thats the job of a president in democracy and in our country. As I said before, religion is a personal thing. Not everyone believes what you believe, thus it is personal. And personal things do not belong in the job place, which is EXACTLY why we have speration of church and state in this country. As President he has the OBLIGATION as a servant of this country and of it's people to disregard any personal beliefs to do the duty set before him. For if he continues to use his religion convictions as a basis for his decissions, he defys the meaning of this country, of democracy, and of all the people he is supposed to serve. It's unconstitutional and un-American. Again, exactly why this statue needs to be removed.

Look, believe what you want, I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe. But if you choose a job, like the presidency, you need to know that your beliefs have no place in it. He decided that when he ran for President, he should have understood that, yet still... he continues to use Christianity in everything he does work related and THAT is wrong. And if you choose a job for the government of this country you must KNOW that we have speration of church and state and that as a worker of this country you have to respect that and confide to that. There's NO other way. Those are the rules.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Leh [/i]
[B][size=1][b]Believing in Jesus is religion, therefore they are trying to tell us Chrisitianity is the right religion, and schools are not places to teach religion.[/b][/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually schools are the perfect place to teach religion. There is a difference between "teaching" and "indoctrinating." I think that all of the major religions of the world should be tought objectively and with responsibility. I don't think the religions should be put on a pro-con basis, but the fundamental values of the 5 major religions of the world (christianity, judaism, buddhism, hinduism, and islam) and their impacts on history should most definately be covered. As i've said earlier, this should be taken objectively, allowing the student to formulate his own opinions on the matter.

This also refers to an argument I have that creationism (or Intelligent Design) should be taught along with evolutionism. The exchange of ideas and debate of such is the highest apex of learning.

"It's all about the dialectics, my boy."

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]I don't say that it's not his job as a Christian to not preach, I'm saying, as President, it is your duty, your perogative, your JOB to be a servant to the people. Thats the job of a president in democracy and in our country. As I said before, religion is a personal thing. Not everyone believes what you believe, thus it is personal. And personal things do not belong in the job place, which is EXACTLY why we have speration of church and state in this country. As President he has the OBLIGATION as a servant of this country and of it's people to disregard any personal beliefs to do the duty set before him. For if he continues to use his religion convictions as a basis for his decissions, he defys the meaning of this country, of democracy, and of all the people he is supposed to serve. It's unconstitutional and un-American. Again, exactly why this statue needs to be removed.

Look, believe what you want, I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe. But if you choose a job, like the presidency, you need to know that your beliefs have no place in it. He decided that when he ran for President, he should have understood that, yet still... he continues to use Christianity in everything he does work related and THAT is wrong. And if you choose a job for the government of this country you must KNOW that we have speration of church and state and that as a worker of this country you have to respect that and confide to that. There's NO other way. Those are the rules. [/B][/QUOTE]


Alright. I think you make fairly valid points, but I disagree. By asking the president to no longer use his faith in the workplace is violating his personal rights and his freedom to religion. So what he prays over the country? So what he chooses to refer to a wisdom that he belives transcends our comprehension? Since when was that BAD? He ABSOLUTELY has the right to use Christianity in anything he does as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, which it is not. His crusade against terrorism isn't a religious one. I've yet to see one of his goals or projects proprieted directly from his religion. You are asking him to give up his first amendment, therefor I consider your argument mute.

Every man has an obligation to something. I understand why this country's currency has "In god we trust" printed upon it. Despite your arguments, we cannot trust the fellow man, whatever you belive. Forever, common sense will always change, there is always a way to justify one's actions when no one has anything to hold it accountable to. The right to life is a Christian founded one, not all people or religions belive in such a right. Debate as you may, but historically human life has never truely been viewed as sacred, much less a right, in most countries even to today.

I think this refers to an argument covered over two thousand years ago, by Socrates. Socrates realized that in relative truth, nothing could be justified. Such is the case with the Sophists. The Sophists belived that every opinion was right, and justified within itself. "Who cares that I killed this man, I justified it. Our opinions may be different , but we are equal, you have no right to justify yours over mine." With this logic, civilization is mute entirely. Socrate's belived in Absolute Truth. He belived there was some higher power to attone to, something from which to base law.

Our government was founded upon an absolute truth, fundamentally the judeo-christian philosophy, where life is sovereign because GOD says it is. I hope you thank your founding fathers for believing this, for if we placed our rights under the relative ideas of the common populace, we may not be a free country. Hitler was a perfect example of relative truth in action. Without referring to some higher power, how do you justify his killing of nearly all the european Jews? You can't. Why? It all refers back to the Socrates argument.

As for the topic, do I belive it should be removed? It's not hurting anything, and it doesn't represent anything malignant. It isn't forcing people to look at it or belive in it. If the majority of people say it should go, then let it go. It's just like any monument, it's there to symbolize what a poopulace agrees or confides in. If the population want's it there, let it stay. I really could care less. I think everyone here, though, should realize how lucky they are that they have an opportunity to voice their opinion , and change the world around them. Let's not critisize those who voice the opposite.

[Transtic Nerve]

I'm going to end up picking apart most of your post, so bear with me here. No offense meant, just trying to proove my point ultimately.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i]
[B]Alright. I think you make fairly valid points, but I disagree.
[/b][/quote]
How can you disagree? It's in the constitution. There's no agree or disagree, there is facts and what is being done. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, religion is NOT supposed to be incorporated in government, Bush is doing that. Those are the facts. There's no disagreeing over that.

[quote][b]By asking the president to no longer use his faith in the workplace is violating his personal rights and his freedom to religion. [/b][/quote]
Again I refer to the fact that religion is of PERSONAL choice. PERSONAL is not work related. I don't go into work complaining about how crappy my gay life is. I go to work and I work. Work life is different from personal life, religion is personal, thus it needs to stay out of the workplace. I'm not violating anything. He can still believe whatever crap he wants to believe, he can still believe it at work. He just shouldn't use it when making work decisions.

[b][quote]He ABSOLUTELY has the right to use Christianity in anything he does as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, which it is not.[/quote][/b]
His beliefs ARE infringing upon other's rights. He continues to use them for making dicisions. He continues to use them in public speeches. He continues to use them as a representation of this nation. He takes in no consideration to those who may not believe in God or who believe in other Gods.

[quote][b]His crusade against terrorism isn't a religious one.[/quote][/b]
Thats an oxy-moron. You can't have a non-religious crusade. Regardless, I never said his war on terrorism was a religious one. The war on Iraq was for oil, the outsting of Saddam was just our official reason for it. The war on Afganistan was to find a guy whom we never did. We just got rid of the Taliban as a side project.

[quote][b]I've yet to see one of his goals or projects proprieted directly from his religion. [/quote][/b]
Here's one: He's blantantly against gay marriages because he is trying to define marriage as a religious ceremony specifically meant for a man and a woman. Which is based off of his Christian faith. He doesn't believe in gay adoption cause his belief in Christianity tells him a family is a man and a woman. He's an adament Christian who places his adament Christian beliefs in all of his work.

[quote][b]You are asking him to give up his first amendment, therefor I consider your argument mute.[/quote][/b]
No, I'm asking him to do as the constitution says and seperate church from state. He is not doing that. Therefor he is preforming acts which are unconstitutional. I'm only asking him to be constitutional, he's not giving up his freedom of religion. He can still have it, he just can't use it when doing governmental thing, as so stated in the constitution. My argument is not mute, you just haven't read the constitution.


[quote][b]The right to life is a Christian founded one[/quote][/b]
The right to life was around LONG before Jesus was ever born. Ever heard of the Greeks or the Romans? Both societies who practiced the right to life within it's own people. (obviously, as with today, this doesn't incorporate wars or enemies) Regardless, if any group amung the peoples of today has taken more life in this world, it's most certainly the three major monothiestic religions. The belief in God has caused more people to die than the plague. I advise you to read my most recent MyOtaku entry as a fine example. Other examples would obviously be the Crusades.

[quote][b]Our government was founded upon an absolute truth, fundamentally the judeo-christian philosophy, where life is sovereign because GOD says it is. I hope you thank your founding fathers for believing this, for if we placed our rights under the relative ideas of the common populace, we may not be a free country. [/quote][/b]
Yes I thank my founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson for making sure that the seperation of church and state exists in this country (see quotes below). This country is not a theocracy. lol, stop pretending it is. Thomas Jefferson, a man who believed in God, the man who gave you freedom, was especially adoment in the ideal of seperation of church and state, why aren't you?

[quote][b]Hitler was a perfect example of relative truth in action. Without referring to some higher power, how do you justify his killing of nearly all the european Jews? You can't. Why? It all refers back to the Socrates argument.[/quote][/b]
This has what to do with the seperation of church and state, which is what this whole topic is about?

You all seem to think Freedom of Speech is total freedom in speech. It's not. You have to read between the lines. There are limits to freedom, most of us figured that out when the government enacted the Patriot Act. We don't have complete freedom of speech, the lines are drawn and there's a big one in the ideal of seperation of church and state. Which basically means your freedom of speech ends when you start bringing the church into our government. Sorry. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats the way it is. Be good Americans and just accept the fact religion has no place in our government. No matter how bad you want it. If you want a theocracy, travel back a few hundred years or move to the middle east. Till then I leave you with quotes:

[i]"..I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting establisment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of seperation between church and state."[/i] - Thomas Jefferson

[i]"I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation for the political concerns of the government."[/i] - Andrew Jackson

[i]"We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of the state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."[/i] - former Senator Barry Goldwater

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]I'm going to end up picking apart most of your post, so bear with me here. No offense meant, just trying to proove my point ultimately.
[/B][/QUOTE]
No problem, but there is no sense in proving a point , as this all regards opinions, not truth.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
How can you disagree? It's in the constitution. There's no agree or disagree, there is facts and what is being done. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, religion is NOT supposed to be incorporated in government, Bush is doing that. Those are the facts. There's no disagreeing over that.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The constitution is the very thing that allows me to disagree. It's not against the law for me to hold a seperate opinion from the constitution. You seem to miss the point of the separation of church and state argument of the constitution. The founding fathers wanted to forever correct the idea that religious officials should rule through the church, and puritanical belifs should be enforced. There is nothing unconstitutional about talking about god in a workplace, you don't have to listen. As long as the government does not infer upon the churches behalf or vice versa, the established amendment remains valid. Once again, just because the "facts" exist, doesn't mean that a seperate intepretation of said "facts" is plausible. Your opinion is as good as mine, vice versa.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
Again I refer to the fact that religion is of PERSONAL choice. PERSONAL is not work related. I don't go into work complaining about how crappy my gay life is. I go to work and I work. Work life is different from personal life, religion is personal, thus it needs to stay out of the workplace. I'm not violating anything. He can still believe whatever crap he wants to believe, he can still believe it at work. He just shouldn't use it when making work decisions.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Please, go to work and complain about how crappy your gay life is. First ammendment there, man. You have the right. There is nothing wrong with allowing your religion to influence your actions or decisions as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
::sigh:: His beliefs ARE infringing upon other's rights. He continues to use them for making dicisions. He continues to use them in public speeches. He continues to use them as a representation of this nation. He takes in no consideration to those who may not believe in God or who believe in other Gods.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Looks like you saw my last reply coming ;). You don't seem to realize that he can make desicions using his personal or religious life. If you don't like it, don't vote for him. Beautiful system isnt it. He isn't forcing you to accept his opinions, he is merely performing to his best abilities as leader of our nation. Whether he consoles in a "religion" is no different than consoling in your own "logical opinions." They are both debatable philosophies, thus equal. He takes no offense towards people that do not belive in god or gods, he isn't forcing his belifs on anyone.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
Thats an oxy-moron. You can't have a non-religious crusade. Regardless, I never said his war on terrorism was a religious one. The war on Iraq was for oil, the outsting of Saddam was just our official reason for it. The war on Afganistan was to find a guy whom we never did. We just got rid of the Taliban as a side project.
[/B][/QUOTE]

You got me there, i was attempting a figure of speech here, don't scrutanize too much in this situation. It wasn't a crusade. And , no, the war in Iraq isn't for oil. Let me ask you this: We've been in Iraq before, why didn't we take their oil then? There is no legitimate reason for us to take their oil, or any other resource, we aren't out for conquest (hint: look up conquest). Answer me this again, STRAIGHT UP: how would leaving people like Saddam Hussein in power help the people of Iraq? I don't expect us to eliminate every tyrannical leader, but we had legitimate evidence that they threatened our national security. I'd wrather take out a tyrannical regime and NOT find any weapons of mass destruction than even take the chance. The possible consequences justify our actions in my opinion. But I'd wrather discuss the war on Iraq in PM if possible.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
Here's one: He's blantantly against gay marriages because he is trying to define marriage as a religious ceremony specifically meant for a man and a woman. Which is based off of his Christian faith. He doesn't believe in gay adoption cause his belief in Christianity tells him a family is a man and a woman. He's an adament Christian who places his adament Christian beliefs in all of his work.
[/B][/QUOTE]

He is allowed to oppose gay marrriages. It's his political stand. People are elected into office with their opinions and political stands, religious or philosophical. Believing that gay marriages should be legal by its own MECHANISMS is the same nature, just a different "philosophy/religion". I personally don't belive gay's should be married, I've got my reasons. I would advocate against it if I were voted into political power. Isn't that the purpose of choosing a representative government? Not the means behind an idea, but the idea itself? Look at the big picture. I belive anyone, including gay's should adopt. Like Bush, I have the right, if elected to power, to express my opinions to what I feel is best for the nation, regardless of my justifications. It's the end , not the means.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
No, I'm asking him to do as the constitution says and seperate church from state. He is not doing that. Therefor he is preforming acts which are unconstitutional. I'm only asking him to be constitutional, he's not giving up his freedom of religion. He can still have it, he just can't use it when doing governmental thing, as so stated in the constitution. My argument is not mute, you just haven't read the constitution.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes he is. Refer to my last rebuttal. He isn't telling us to belive in the christian doctrine. He isn't letting the church, or religious body define our country. He is defining it by the governmental processes in place. I have read the constitution, perhaps we intepret the history behind it differently?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
The right to life was around LONG before Jesus was ever born. Ever heard of the Greeks or the Romans? Both societies who practiced the right to life within it's own people. (obviously, as with today, this doesn't incorporate wars or enemies) Regardless, if any group amung the peoples of today has taken more life in this world, it's most certainly the three major monothiestic religions. Your belief in God has caused more people to die than the plague. I advise you to read my most recent MyOtaku entry as a fine example. Other examples would obviously be the Crusades.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Greeks and romans? Oh dear god! The closest thing that the greeks got to in the ways of the right to life was under Peracles. Peracles advocated a true democracy as a form of absolute truth (back to socrates), and under direct advisment from Socrates. Otherwise:
-Most greek city states were ruled by a leader, no one had a right to much of anything unless the ruler said so.
-Spartans would kill off babies or young children for merely CRYING. It was a sign of weakness.
-Thebians would cast widows into the ocean.
-All three practiced human sacrifice, slavery, and monarchal rule.
-Roman colusseums. Enough Said.
-Roman's also endorsed slavery.
-The Republic ruled for a while, granting a limited right to life to patricians. Plebians, or commoners were subject to anything the Patricians desired.
-Speaking of plebians. Roman soldiers by law at the time, were allowed to use a plebians house, and WIFE with or without consent from the plebian. Refusal would result in execution.
-Watch Spartacus, true story.
I could go on... I think I'll move on to your next point.

Next. Actually Atheism and its myriad of corresponding philosophies have caused more death in the world, probably combined with personal agenda. Do you think the crusades were a Christian act? I don't belive they are. This is subjec to debate, I belive the crusades were based upon the personal agenda of Pope Innocent III, who used a veil of christianity to hide the political reasons. Oh I'm getting of track. Yes Atheism has killed more people, allow me to elaborate:

-Hitler: 5,044,000 killed jews (I didn't even include the thousands he killed in subsequent invasions of poland, france, russia, attacking britian, etc. )
Means: Personal agenda, there was no real reason why Hitler had anything against the Jews. Judaism isn't responsible for this, the political machine was only fueled by judaism. It was a means, not an end.

-Stalin: 7,700,000 civilians, mostly orthodox jews.
Means: He hated religion.

-Mao Zedong: 14 to 20 million deaths from starvation during the 'Great Leap Forward'. Tens of thousands killed and millions of lives ruined during the 'Cultural Revolution'.
Means: promoting atheism.

These are just a few juicy ones. I could give you MORE examples if you wanted *cough* napoleon *cough*.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
Yes I thank my founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson for making sure that the seperation of church and state exists in this country (see quotes below). This country is not a theocracy. lol, stop pretending it is. Thomas Jefferson, a man who believed in God, the man who gave you freedom, was especially adoment in the ideal of seperation of church and state, why aren't you?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Stop pretending that you, or any other person, or body of person's has the right to justify even one man's right to life based upon their personal opinions. History points against that.
Thomas Jefferson was a religious man by word, not practice. In fact he was a Deist, not a Christian. I belive you misintepret the constitution is all. You belive that it should be taboo to even mention god in the government. Well , If we can't trust a figure like god, who can we trust? You? Sorry, my opinions differ. The populace? There have been empires of total disregard for human life. What else can we trust in? The point i make is that we don't FORCE you to BELIVE it.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]This has what to do with the seperation of church and state, which is what this whole topic is about?

You all seem to think Freedom of Speech is total freedom in speech. It's not. You have to read between the lines. There are limits to freedom, most of us figured that out when the government enacted the Patriot Act. We don't have complete freedom of speech, the lines are drawn and there's a big one in the ideal of seperation of church and state. Which basically means your freedom of speech ends when you start bringing the church into our government. Sorry. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats the way it is folks. Be good Americans and just accept the fact GOD has no place in our government. No matter how bad you want it. If you want a theocracy, travel back a few hundred years or move to the middle east.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually it is a freedom of speech. I have a right to say you wrong you have the same right to say it to me. You are just being redundant here. I suppose that is a major factor in your argument after all. If you want an oxymoron try "Limited Freedom", unless we are reffering to the OBJECT of our freedom, in which case, i digress.

Did you even read my socrates aricle :(. I didn't hear anything referring to it.

Thank you for your opinions. While I disagree with yours, please know that I respect your opinions and choice of lifestlye.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i]
[B] Christians are [i]required[/i] to preach the Good News to the nations.
-Justin [/B][/QUOTE]

Since when?

Seriously, the obligation of spreading a dogma is one of the most misunderstood practices of the Christian faith. Where in the Bible does it tell you, abjectly and not within the context of a larger story, to try and convert everyone you can?

I am Christian, but I hold the right to disagree with the conversion philosiphy. If God didn't want me to disagree, he wouldn't have given me free thought. However, I'll gladly explain my reasoning, lest I be stoned to death with stones.

Discovering a faith is a deeply personal and spiritual event in a person's life. As such, I believe that the process of discovering your faith is one of the most private things in the world.

Someone of another faith has no right to do that for you. I would not want, say, a person of the Muslim faith to tell me constantly how great Muslim is and how I'll burn forever if I don't follow it. I extend the same courtesy to everyone else.