Quote of the Day

I don't feel divided by "in god we trust" or "under god". I see that as a cultural thing, and those trends shift over time. Perhaps if I were old enough to remember the pledge before they changed it I'd feel differently, I don't know. I see it as harmless.

If it gets government approval, it goes far beyond a cultural thing, regardless of your feeling of harmlessness.

Since it is so harmless, nobody should object if we remove it, then, hmm?

So, because I am not sure if I am under god, am I part of this nation? Nobody has answered that question, yet.

Marriage is primarily a religious event. I'm not religious so a judge friend of mine performed our ceremony. Gay marriages have never been recognized in this country. I think they are demanding something quite silly when they demand "marriage" over "civil unions".

Marriage is also a civil contract. Did you not have to get a marriage license from the state? I'll bet that it even said "Marriage Licence".

No government, state or federal should deny two consenting adults from entering into such a contract. The reality is, however, that state governments have done exactly that. Why? Because of the religious beliefs of the residents.

TerryRC wrote:I said we were a nation founded on Christian principals TC. If we weren't founded on Christian principals, then exactly what principals were we founded on.

You didn't answer my question. You stated we were founded on christian principles. Provide some evidence.

We were founded on many ideas that came from the Age of Enlightenment.

What this nation was primarily founded on was the rule of common law. This does not come from "christian values" and, in fact, predates christianity.

That's your opinion, which is at best, a minority one. The more common view is that our constitution and bill of rights are based on 'Christian principals' such as treat others as you want to be treated, respect and items of that nature.

Our problem isn't that our legislating religious beliefs, it's that we as a nation have gotten away from our core principals, we're running to the left and it's only a matter of time before you guys ruin this nation.

That's your opinion, which is at best, a minority one. The more common view is that our constitution and bill of rights are based on 'Christian principals' such as treat others as you want to be treated, respect and items of that nature.

The "golden rule" predates christianity. It isn't exclusive to them.

So, how many of the 10 commandments are actually law? Yep. We are founded on "christian principles".

As to my opinion being a "minority one", we have only to read Jefferson and Madison to know that I am right. That is why the right to a trial by jury featues so promenently in the COTUS.

Our problem isn't that our legislating religious beliefs, it's that we as a nation have gotten away from our core principals, we're running to the left and it's only a matter of time before you guys ruin this nation.

You mean by going back to the secular nation our founders envisioned? Oh, the horror. That doesn't make me liberal, it makes me a true conservative.

Aaron, even some of the evangelicals are admitting that they politicize their beliefs:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004399825_evangelical08.html

Of course, people like "Dr." James Dobson wouldn't sign. They would rather continue to be republican tools.

I feel kind of bad doing this to you - kind of like smacking a blind guy around...

How about book bans by religious asshats.

Surely that counts as people using "decency" laws (legislation) to force you to adhere to their beliefs (religion).

They don't just want to keep their kids from reading it, they want to keep yours from reading it, also.

That's your opinion, which is at best, a minority one. The more common view is that our constitution and bill of rights are based on 'Christian principals' such as treat others as you want to be treated, respect and items of that nature.

Evidence, please?

You have none, of course.

This about pegs it:

Aaron wrote:
That's your opinion, which is at best, a minority one. The more common view is that our constitution and bill of rights are based on 'Christian principals' such as treat others as you want to be treated, respect and items of that nature.

Now Aaron, the truth is, .......... those 'Christian principals' you are claiming were really plagarized from a much, much older set of principles and laws.

cheers

TerryRC wrote:So, because I am not sure if I am under god, am I part of this nation? Nobody has answered that question, yet.

You don't believe in God. Why does it matter?

TerryRC wrote:Marriage is also a civil contract. Did you not have to get a marriage license from the state? I'll bet that it even said "Marriage Licence".

No government, state or federal should deny two consenting adults from entering into such a contract. The reality is, however, that state governments have done exactly that. Why? Because of the religious beliefs of the residents.

That's not entirely true. The contract has been offered with all government rights and privalages, just under a different name. The problem is, that was rebuffed by the homosexual community.

I'm sure your congress could trade a civil union for some war funding so why not solve the issue once and for all?

TerryRC wrote:That's your opinion, which is at best, a minority one. The more common view is that our constitution and bill of rights are based on 'Christian principals' such as treat others as you want to be treated, respect and items of that nature.

The "golden rule" predates christianity. It isn't exclusive to them.

So, how many of the 10 commandments are actually law? Yep. We are founded on "christian principles".

As to my opinion being a "minority one", we have only to read Jefferson and Madison to know that I am right. That is why the right to a trial by jury featues so promenently in the COTUS.

Our problem isn't that our legislating religious beliefs, it's that we as a nation have gotten away from our core principals, we're running to the left and it's only a matter of time before you guys ruin this nation.

You mean by going back to the secular nation our founders envisioned? Oh, the horror. That doesn't make me liberal, it makes me a true conservative.

Aaron, even some of the evangelicals are admitting that they politicize their beliefs:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004399825_evangelical08.html

Of course, people like "Dr." James Dobson wouldn't sign. They would rather continue to be republican tools.

I feel kind of bad doing this to you - kind of like smacking a blind guy around...

What you don't realize is that Dr. James Dobson is a minority opinion and he's not doing anything that every liberal group is doing, trying to get what they want out there. What you haven't done is shown where Dr. Dobson is succeeding. I'm still waiting on that. You've had a month now. Are you ever going to be able to accomplish that?

And you're telling me our founders envisioned a country with no discipline, self respect, values or morals.

I don't think so lib!!!

TerryRC wrote:How about book bans by religious asshats.

Surely that counts as people using "decency" laws (legislation) to force you to adhere to their beliefs (religion).

They don't just want to keep their kids from reading it, they want to keep yours from reading it, also.

Sorry Lib but you'll have to show me in the costitution where your right to indeceny has to be funded by my tax dollars. If you want to subject your kids to that kind of material, pay for it yourself.

The problem with your cartoon Lib is I've never exposed my abortion beliefs (it's none of your business), I believe homosexuals have every right to a civil union (I don't know why their so hell bent that it has to be called "marriage"), I don't have a problem with athiest (I'll answer for my life, you answer for yours) I could care less about art exhibits unless they're financed by tax dollars (it's unconstitutional) and I could really care less what you teach your child. Your problem is, you think you have some constitutional right NOT to be offended. That's just not the case and the way I see it, you're the one with the problem, not me.

Cheers.

You don't believe in God. Why does it matter?

I don't believe in the CHRISTIAN god, strawman.

Your problem is, you think you have some constitutional right NOT to be offended.

No, but I have a constitutional right to not have to be forced to follow your religious values.

Sorry Lib but you'll have to show me in the costitution where your right to indeceny has to be funded by my tax dollars. If you want to subject your kids to that kind of material, pay for it yourself.

Right, because an unusual family of penguins is SO indecent.

Should your local museum ban Michaelangelo's David? You can see dude's shlong. So obscene!

What if the book wasn't bought with your tax dollars? What if it was bought and donated?

Calls for book bans can be used to stifle ANY opposing point of view. Just ask Hitler.

Why should my tax dollars go to providing the bible in the library (and every public library I've been in has one)? If you want to read that tripe, go to a church or buy one.

See how silly that sounds?

What you don't realize is that Dr. James Dobson is a minority opinion and he's not doing anything that every liberal group is doing, trying to get what they want out there. What you haven't done is shown where Dr. Dobson is succeeding. I'm still waiting on that. You've had a month now. Are you ever going to be able to accomplish that?

Faith-based charity going just to christian groups. Anti-abortion bills in a bundle of states. God on a Florida licence plate. Calls for bans on books and increased standards for obscenity (including saying Christ).

The Dobsons ARE succeeding and, while perhaps a minority (~30% of the population - about the same amount that still support Bush, coincidence?) the politicians pander severely to them.

And you're telling me our founders envisioned a country with no discipline, self respect, values or morals.

So not having a particular religion means one has no morals?

You are such a boob.

In the OT, committing genocide was moral because it was commanded by god. In my book, that would always be a heinous offense.

If one must be religious to have "morals", I'll be cheerfully amoral, thanks.

That's not entirely true. The contract has been offered with all government rights and privalages, just under a different name. The problem is, that was rebuffed by the homosexual community.

Not in over a third of the states. Look it up.

Wiki

Also, why should there be federal legislation to "define" marriage in the strictly judeo-christian sense. There are many different types of marriage. As long as it is between adults, it is none of the government's business, state or federal.

I'm sure your congress could trade a civil union for some war funding so why not solve the issue once and for all?

Again with the strawman? Why "my congress"? I'm a registered independent.

Are you dishonest or just a jerk?

I could care less about art exhibits unless they're financed by tax dollars (it's unconstitutional)

Really? Show me where it is forbidden by the COTUS at a state or local level.

This should be good...

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

-Mohandas K. Gandhi

So, Aaron, do see that even many evangelicals are admitting that they are politicizing their faith.

How can you deny what is happening when the people that are doing it even admit it?

Aaron wrote:

TerryRC wrote:Marriage is also a civil contract. Did you not have to get a marriage license from the state? I'll bet that it even said "Marriage Licence".

No government, state or federal should deny two consenting adults from entering into such a contract. The reality is, however, that state governments have done exactly that. Why? Because of the religious beliefs of the residents.

That's not entirely true. The contract has been offered with all government rights and privalages, just under a different name. The problem is, that was rebuffed by the homosexual community.

"Civil unions" for homosexuals legislation has been defeated in state after state by the army of lobbyists for the regilious right, not by the "homosexual community".

TerryRC wrote:This about pegs it:

I see. Teach me again about intolerance and stereotypes, won't you?

TerryRC wrote:You don't believe in God. Why does it matter?

I don't believe in the CHRISTIAN god, strawman.

There's that relative atheism thing I've talked about before at work here again, folks.

Aaron says that since TRC doesn't believe in the same Christian God that someone else does, that TRC doesn't believe in any God.

That we each either invent our own God(s), or adopt someone else's doesn't count for so many folks.

"If you don't believe in my God, then you don't believe in any God"- the famous words of wannabe King God makers everywhere.

I see. Teach me again about intolerance and stereotypes, won't you?

I don't profess to be completely tolerant.

On the other hand, it does seem to represent the views of a number of outspoken christians that are constantly trying to legislate the very same opinions expressed in the comic.

We even have some christians on this board that have expressed these opinions (not necessarily you, Mike).

Why just a little while ago, Aaron equated religion with morality. He says one can't be moral without being religious.

Nobody can deny that the comic does contain some truth.

I also didn't say that all christians are like that. Some are, though. I know some and I'll bet you do, also.

I think that many Christians are able to verbalize anti-abortion/anti-same sex marriage/anti-public funding of art in more appropriate ways than the lady with the halo.

My problem with public funding of obscene art begins with my disapproval of public funding of art, period. Aren't there plenty of art leagues in existence that we don't need public sponsorship? Naturally I find obscene art to be offensive, but it's easy enough for me just not to look at it.

Sure many people can lact tact of whatever stripe, but I have found a great many civil people in this world with whom I enjoy speaking and cannot reduce to caricatures.

My problem with public funding of obscene art begins with my disapproval of public funding of art, period. Aren't there plenty of art leagues in existence that we don't need public sponsorship? Naturally I find obscene art to be offensive, but it's easy enough for me just not to look at it.

I appreciate your attitude.

The public funding of art and literature is not one of those powers granted the fed. The COTUS does not, however, forbid state or local governments from doing so.

TerryRC wrote:You don't believe in God. Why does it matter?

I don't believe in the CHRISTIAN god, strawman.

Your problem is, you think you have some constitutional right NOT to be offended.

No, but I have a constitutional right to not have to be forced to follow your religious values.

Sorry Lib but you'll have to show me in the costitution where your right to indeceny has to be funded by my tax dollars. If you want to subject your kids to that kind of material, pay for it yourself.

Right, because an unusual family of penguins is SO indecent.

Should your local museum ban Michaelangelo's David? You can see dude's shlong. So obscene!

What if the book wasn't bought with your tax dollars? What if it was bought and donated?

Calls for book bans can be used to stifle ANY opposing point of view. Just ask Hitler.

Why should my tax dollars go to providing the bible in the library (and every public library I've been in has one)? If you want to read that tripe, go to a church or buy one.

See how silly that sounds?

What you don't realize is that Dr. James Dobson is a minority opinion and he's not doing anything that every liberal group is doing, trying to get what they want out there. What you haven't done is shown where Dr. Dobson is succeeding. I'm still waiting on that. You've had a month now. Are you ever going to be able to accomplish that?

Faith-based charity going just to christian groups. Anti-abortion bills in a bundle of states. God on a Florida licence plate. Calls for bans on books and increased standards for obscenity (including saying Christ).

The Dobsons ARE succeeding and, while perhaps a minority (~30% of the population - about the same amount that still support Bush, coincidence?) the politicians pander severely to them.

And you're telling me our founders envisioned a country with no discipline, self respect, values or morals.

So not having a particular religion means one has no morals?

You are such a boob.

In the OT, committing genocide was moral because it was commanded by god. In my book, that would always be a heinous offense.

If one must be religious to have "morals", I'll be cheerfully amoral, thanks.

No one is forcing you to follow anything, you've not shown that faith based charity is going to only Christian group, you cited one example in which the group was fined for attempting to convert and your welcome.

Anything else Lib?

ziggy wrote:

TerryRC wrote:You don't believe in God. Why does it matter?

I don't believe in the CHRISTIAN god, strawman.

There's that relative atheism thing I've talked about before at work here again, folks.

Aaron says that since TRC doesn't believe in the same Christian God that someone else does, that TRC doesn't believe in any God.

That we each either invent our own God(s), or adopt someone else's doesn't count for so many folks.

"If you don't believe in my God, then you don't believe in any God"- the famous words of wannabe King God makers everywhere.

Everytime you attempt to jump into the middle of a conversation and slam me Frank, you're so far off base it isn't even funny. TC said he didn't believe in God, not Aaron and Aaron's never said his God is what you would associate with the 'Christian' God. I have my beliefs that I've never tried to force on anyone else and frankly, I don't give a fat rat's ass what God you or TC believe in. My point was and is, his accusations of legislating religious belief's are garbage and considering that in 3 weeks, he's failed to come up with more then a handful of laws that aren't a hundred years old and Christmas, I'd say he's pretty much proven my point.

Any thing else dude?

TerryRC wrote:My problem with public funding of obscene art begins with my disapproval of public funding of art, period. Aren't there plenty of art leagues in existence that we don't need public sponsorship? Naturally I find obscene art to be offensive, but it's easy enough for me just not to look at it.

I appreciate your attitude.

The public funding of art and literature is not one of those powers granted the fed. The COTUS does not, however, forbid state or local governments from doing so.

Our schools are mandated and at least partially funded through federal tax dollars. Thus they must abide but the United States Constitution.