NationStates Jolt Archive

and end to crap like this:




President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.

The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval. The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.

Dr. Hager, the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology.

Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. In the book Dr.Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests thatwomen who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying.

As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.

We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives for to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate e candidate to serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.


Is that too much to ask? There are some sweeping changes coming about in our nation and they are scary and backwards. Please stop this madness you religious righties! Are you completely insane? Can't you see we are not a nation founded by Christians and dont wish to become a theocracy? If you don't believe in the seapration of church and state then you are not a true American and should go find another country to ruin.

Thanx that is all.

Errr? And who are you to define a true American?

"What do Bush bashers want?"


Well...some world peace would be nice...

Errr? And who are you to define a true American?

It takes a true American to know a true American. That would be me. :p :D

Can't you see we are not a nation founded by Christians and dont wish to become a theocracy? If you don't believe in the seapration of church and state then you are not a true American and should go find another country to ruin.

Thanx that is all.
You are a foolish person. You are wrong, this nation was founded by christians. Church and State seperation is a figment of the imagination of a secular Supreme Court. There is nothing in the Constitution about it. No one is trying to establish a thocracy, however, people would like the oppurtunity to practice their religion with out attacks from bigots.

You are a foolish person. You are wrong, this nation was founded by christians. Church and State seperation is a figment of the imagination of a secular Supreme Court. There is nothing in the Constitution about it.

Read it, then tell me what you think about that:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6556099&postcount=35

You are a foolish person. You are wrong, this nation was founded by christians. Church and State seperation is a figment of the imagination of a secular Supreme Court. There is nothing in the Constitution about it. No one is trying to establish a thocracy, however, people would like the oppurtunity to practice their religion with out attacks from bigots.

And this is why we Americans are laughed at world-wide. THis person doesn't even know the history of their own country. Did you sleep through history, or just have a shitty teacher?

and end to crap like this:




Is that too much to ask? There are some sweeping changes coming about in our nation and they are scary and backwards. Please stop this madness you religious righties! Are you completely insane? Can't you see we are not a nation founded by Christians and dont wish to become a theocracy? If you don't believe in the seapration of church and state then you are not a true American and should go find another country to ruin.

Thanx that is all.

The US *was* founded by Christians.
That said, I don't see Roe v. Wade going away any time soon (if ever), nor a theocracy in the budding. Everyone knows that Cheney can't be President. For the GOP to win next election, they have to stay moderate.

...We want the world, and we want it -

Now?

If I ever became president I would fill as many seats with non-christians as I could, then ban the Bible. Sure, it'd piss a lot of people off but I could just threaten them with the big red death button ;)

So... You're saying that people should not be allowed to make decisions based on their religious beliefs, and that christians don't belong in politics?

Hmmm... this seems to violate some amendment I've heard of...

Read it, then tell me what you think about that:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6556099&postcount=35
John Adams - Christian
Ben Franklin - Christian
Thomas Jefferson - Christian
James Madison - Christian
Goerge Washington - Christian

So, what exactly was your point?

The US *was* founded by Christians.
That said, I don't see Roe v. Wade going away any time soon (if ever), nor a theocracy in the budding. Everyone knows that Cheney can't be President. For the GOP to win next election, they have to stay moderate.

No, the US was founded by some Christians, some deists, at least one that was interested in paganism, and a few bordering on atheism. Get your history straight.

John Adams - Christian
Ben Franklin - Christian
Thomas Jefferson - Christian
James Madison - Christian
Goerge Washington - Christian

So, what exactly was your point?


So you didn't read it?

And this is why we Americans are laughed at world-wide. THis person doesn't even know the history of their own country. Did you sleep through history, or just have a shitty teacher?
And this is why you are laughed at forum wide. Are you just going thru the motions of thinking, or are you actually making an effort? i hope you are just faking. Show me in the constitution any mention of seperation of Church and State.

John Adams - Christian
Ben Franklin - Christian
Thomas Jefferson - Christian
James Madison - Christian
Goerge Washington - Christian

So, what exactly was your point?

Ben Franklin was specifically quoted as saying that the *teachings* of Christ were great, but that he did not follow the religion.

Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ and was, by all accounts, a deist. Adams I believe, was the same, and was even later interested in paganism.

And *ALL* of these men approved of the Treaty of Tripoli (which specifically stated that the US was in no way founded as a Christian nation).

*ALL* of these men voted *against* a motion to add the name Jesus Christ into the preamble to the Constitution.

And this is why you are laughed at forum wide. Are you just going thru the motions of thinking, or are you actually making an effort? i hope you are just faking. Show me in the constitution any mention of seperation of Church and State.

See, some people can understand context. Others, like you, cannot - and feel that they need exact words to make a point.

The 1st Amendment is very clear about the establishment of a government-preferred religion. The Treaty of Tripoli is very clear that the US was not meant to be a "Christian nation." And all of the Founders were quite clear on this as well.

So... You're saying that people should not be allowed to make decisions based on their religious beliefs, and that christians don't belong in politics?

Nooo...he's saying that the government cannot make decisions that are based on religious code or ethics, and that is what the seperation of church and state are. You can practice all you want, but there are plenty of people in this country that don't believe in God, yet you are forcing those views and opinions if your regulations and mandates are guided by one specific religion...especially a scientific position.

Morals is not objective and defined ideal, it is a subjective viewpoint. Every person in this world has a different set of morals. Most are the same, the basic set are fairly universal, but they aren't always matched up. The task at hand is to define comon laws and practices that can cover the general consensus without alienating a large portion of your population. Such a "moral" dilema would be abortion, government restrictions on broadcast, etc. To some, indecent programing is defined as kissing, while others it's full on blood and guts. Who's right? Each person is, because it's their own values they follow. I think that one should remain true to the general values of life and liberty, but not close of the right to make your own decision that doesn't affect the lives of anybody else. Gay Marriage. You may have a RELIGIOUS offense to gays, but in what way is it infringing on any of your rights? You are not being affected in any way, at all. Nothing you deal with would be changed because gay's legal status would allow to be married.

I'm preaching equality and restraint, taking care to respect the views and wishes of ALL americans, not just your own, restricted viewpoints. See...that's called being open-minded.

What do Bush-Bashers want?

Well let's start with having him deported. Let me personally the people of Afghanistan and Iraq that he was trying to "save."

And then let's round up the rest of the villiage idiots in his back pocket...err...Cabinet and put M-16's in their hand and let them fight the war on terroism, since you know, it's threatening our everyday lives in the US.

And then for the hell of it, round up his brother, and his parents, and anyone else related to him and send them off on a refugee boat.

That would be a nice start.

Ben Franklin was specifically quoted as saying that the *teachings* of Christ were great, but that he did not follow the religion.

Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ and was, by all accounts, a deist. Adams I believe, was the same, and was even later interested in paganism.

And *ALL* of these men approved of the Treaty of Tripoli (which specifically stated that the US was in no way founded as a Christian nation).

*ALL* of these men voted *against* a motion to add the name Jesus Christ into the preamble to the Constitution.

I have to use my favorite quote:

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Chruch from the State"
-- James Madison

I have to use my favorite quote:

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Chruch from the State"
-- James Madison

The funniest part is that these religious fundamentalists don't know that separation of church and state actually protects *both*. The only result of having them mix is that *both* are corrupted and weakened.

--No, the US was founded by some Christians, some deists, at least one that was interested in paganism, and a few bordering on atheism. Get your history straight.



straight up truth there....the rest of the world has found its balance between church and state(at least in some countries)....if your american you believe that everyone can have their own personal beliefs truths and opinions if you try to limit other peoples beliefs truths and opinions then your being opressive, your forcing others to your view and your beliefs. If the atheist or deist got into power and decided that christianity was bad for your health (in some respects it is especially the extremist) you would feel the same as us who are being repressed by the rightist movement in the government right now, i cant practice my beliefs (neo-paganist) in public without being kicked or spit at by the chrisitans, i cannot talk about my beliefs at work or school because of the christians, most of my holidays (execept for the ones coopted by the christians --aka christmas is not only christ's birthday people) are not supported by the government or even officialy recognized (not that i really mind but what if they suddenly said that christmas was a holiday not practiced by the government- how would you christians react?)

the rest of the world sees us as backward and conservitive to an extreme; bush has done nothing but enforce this belief.

Listen people only half the nation supports this guy the other half goes against most or all of his standpoints in politics....dont think that everyone agrees with you we were a nation brought into being by people who did not want others to tell them what they can or cannot do and i believe that the great expiriment should continue uninterupted by people who think they know better than us about what we want or need...

also Roe Vs. Wade is being very directly challenged right now, the appointment of judges is a very important subject when it comes to the laws that protect your rights, the leftist have never told you you cannot do something have they? have they ever tried to take away your right to not use contraceptives? have they ever told you you cannot go to your palce of worship? Have they told you that you have to have sex with your wife or loved ones? have they told you who you are going to marry or not? Have they tried to limit your holidays? no because being left means that you believe in the rights of the induvidual that each person is important because of their beliefs and that those beliefs are the most important thing you can have

get it straight people we have never tried to take anything away from you, we have tried to show you our elightenment we have tried to tell you why we have our beliefs but we have never tried to force you to those beliefs and thats all you seem to do...

I dont hate any of you for this, i sometimes pity your short sightedness your inability to see that people think differently than you or your belief that what you think is the only way to think. But being the moral leftist that i am i will never try to force you into this way of thinking because at least i respect that you have an opinion even if i think that it is wrong.

well enough being serious anyone have a monkey?

No, the US was founded by some Christians, some deists, at least one that was interested in paganism, and a few bordering on atheism. Get your history straight.

I assume this is where you're getting your info?
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm


My point, my "Get your history straight" shooting friend, is that Christians did indeed found the nation.

Perhaps they weren't the Presidential Founding Fathers, but colonial settlement, (especially Massachusettes, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maryland) were most certainly religous in their foundation.

Further, many of the Founding Fathers WERE Christian, most notably John Hancock, Roger Sherman, John Mercer and Alexander Hamilton.

--No, the US was founded by some Christians, some deists, at least one that was interested in paganism, and a few bordering on atheism. Get your history straight.



straight up truth there....the rest of the world has found its balance between church and state(at least in some countries)....if your american you believe that everyone can have their own personal beliefs truths and opinions if you try to limit other peoples beliefs truths and opinions then your being opressive, your forcing others to your view and your beliefs. If the atheist or deist got into power and decided that christianity was bad for your health (in some respects it is especially the extremist) you would feel the same as us who are being repressed by the rightist movement in the government right now, i cant practice my beliefs (neo-paganist) in public without being kicked or spit at by the chrisitans, i cannot talk about my beliefs at work or school because of the christians, most of my holidays (execept for the ones coopted by the christians --aka christmas is not only christ's birthday people) are not supported by the government or even officialy recognized (not that i really mind but what if they suddenly said that christmas was a holiday not practiced by the government- how would you christians react?)

the rest of the world sees us as backward and conservitive to an extreme; bush has done nothing but enforce this belief.

Listen people only half the nation supports this guy the other half goes against most or all of his standpoints in politics....dont think that everyone agrees with you we were a nation brought into being by people who did not want others to tell them what they can or cannot do and i believe that the great expiriment should continue uninterupted by people who think they know better than us about what we want or need...

also Roe Vs. Wade is being very directly challenged right now, the appointment of judges is a very important subject when it comes to the laws that protect your rights, the leftist have never told you you cannot do something have they? have they ever tried to take away your right to not use contraceptives? have they ever told you you cannot go to your palce of worship? Have they told you that you have to have sex with your wife or loved ones? have they told you who you are going to marry or not? Have they tried to limit your holidays? no because being left means that you believe in the rights of the induvidual that each person is important because of their beliefs and that those beliefs are the most important thing you can have

get it straight people we have never tried to take anything away from you, we have tried to show you our elightenment we have tried to tell you why we have our beliefs but we have never tried to force you to those beliefs and thats all you seem to do...

I dont hate any of you for this, i sometimes pity your short sightedness your inability to see that people think differently than you or your belief that what you think is the only way to think. But being the moral leftist that i am i will never try to force you into this way of thinking because at least i respect that you have an opinion even if i think that it is wrong.

well enough being serious anyone have a monkey?


Damn good post!

the united states was founded by christians yes, but does anyone rember what these people did? Well they burned witches, were among the last to ablolish slavery, turned on themsleves to create a civil war ect ect. They have not had the most, how you say, morally just history. The United Rite always try to preach moral superiority to the "heithens", but rember when they preached that to the fuzzy indiginious kittens knows as native american? Yup they all died a grusome death. So in conclusion RELIGION SHOULDNT GUIDE POLITICS, ESPECIALLY THE NIT PICKY PARTS OF RELIGION THAT CONTRADICT OTHER PARTS!

I think this topic was more directed at what would happen if this guy gets in. It will be a sad day when the Pill will no longer be given out and abortions banned because of a religious fundamentalist in power.

Now, I've got nothing against religous fundamentalists, I believe that others can believe in what they want as long as they don't impeach upon anyone else's rights, but I think putting a very religious man with this kind of history in charge of what kind of contraceptives are available and to who a very very bad idea.

I assume this is where you're getting your info?
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm

No, I get my info from history.

My point, my "Get your history straight" shooting friend, is that Christians did indeed found the nation.

Perhaps they weren't the Presidential Founding Fathers, but colonial settlement, (especially Massachusettes, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maryland) were most certainly religous in their foundation.

Colonies were colonies. Some were based in religion, some were not.

The *US* was founded as a secular nation, in which *any* religion could be practiced.

Further, many of the Founding Fathers WERE Christian, most notably John Hancock, Roger Sherman, John Mercer and Alexander Hamilton.

I never said that *none* of them were, although *none* of these were willing to make the *US* a *Christian* nation.

This is why freedom of religion was, in essence, created. To make it so all the positions weren't based off of christianity. I'm tired of catholics and other christians (catholics most noted as my town is chalk full of them) forcing their beliefs on me. The founding fathers may have been Christian but they didn't intend this to be a Christian nation. And when you consider that there are the self-righteous christians who think they're always right when they never are.

I think this topic was more directed at what would happen if this guy gets in. It will be a sad day when the Pill will no longer be given out and abortions banned because of a religious fundamentalist in power.

Now, I've got nothing against religous fundamentalists, I believe that others can believe in what they want as long as they don't impeach upon anyone else's rights, but I think putting a very religious man with this kind of history in charge of what kind of contraceptives are available and to who a very very bad idea.
I'll go even farther and say that ANY religious fundamentalist should not be put in charge of ANY scientific related position. Science is strictly an atheist profession. Yes christian can be scientist, but it is not supposed to interfere in their work.

the united states was founded by christians yes, but does anyone rember what these people did? Well they burned witches, were among the last to ablolish slavery, turned on themsleves to create a civil war ect ect. They have not had the most, how you say, morally just history. The United Rite always try to preach moral superiority to the "heithens", but rember when they preached that to the fuzzy indiginious kittens knows as native american? Yup they all died a grusome death. So in conclusion RELIGION SHOULDNT GUIDE POLITICS, ESPECIALLY THE NIT PICKY PARTS OF RELIGION THAT CONTRADICT OTHER PARTS!

FIRST: THE NUMBER OF WITCHES BURNED IN THE US IS EXACTLY ZERO!
Here in the colonies, we drowned them, stoned them, pressed them and even hung them, but we never, ever burned them. I come from the Fairfield County area of Connecticut, the #2 witch killing area in the colonies.

SECOND:
http://www.freetheslaves.net/slavery_today/slavery.html
Banned Slavery, by year:

Early
Sweden: 1813
Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Bolivia: 1825
British Empire: 1834
France: 1848
_____________________
Same time
Russia: 1861
US: 1863
_____________________
Later
Brazil, Cuba: 1888
_____________________
Much Later
Congo/Zaire: 1909
Malaya: 1915
Burma: 1926
Sierra Leone: 1927
Saudi Arabia, Yemen: 1962
India: 1976 (bonded labor)
Mauritania: 1980 (for the 4th time!)
Pakistan: 2003 (bonded labor)

_____________________
Still legal - There are over 27 MILLION people still enslaved today.
Sudan, Thailand, and Somalia just to start with.

THIRD: That Civil War you mention was about a state's rights to *leave* the nation, and the question of slavery. How can you complain about slavery existing, while at the same time condemning the thing that brought about it's end?

FOURTH: Show me ANY nation's history and I will show you a morally unjust past. QED.

No, I get my info from history.
Colonies were colonies. Some were based in religion, some were not.

Good. And you know of course, that history is open to interpretation. There are even some that think that the bombing of Hiroshima was wrong...

And people were people. But I think we can agree that the founding of the nation was neither wholly religious nor wholly secular?

The *US* was founded as a secular nation, in which *any* religion could be practiced.

Absolutely. But to say that the nation was not founded by Christians is extreme. It was, just not solely.

I never said that *none* of them were, although *none* of these were willing to make the *US* a *Christian* nation.

Fair enough, but that's how I read your post. My apologies. Yet some DID want the US to be a Christian nation, but they were (fortunately) not the majority.

Oh yay! My other favourite topic! Religion and Politics! They don't mix!

And yet another chance to help the side that is saying that having the two separate is a good thing.

It's time again to dig out my paper on this subject, entitled: Religion and Politics - a Bloody Battleground (http://chikita.seiryuuheaven.net/rvsp.doc).

See, some people can understand context. Others, like you, cannot - and feel that they need exact words to make a point.

The 1st Amendment is very clear about the establishment of a government-preferred religion. The Treaty of Tripoli is very clear that the US was not meant to be a "Christian nation." And all of the Founders were quite clear on this as well.There is no mention of seperation of Church and State in the constitution. Get a clue.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

"What do Bush bashers want?"


Well...some world peace would be nice...
serously some one should give bush ther brain he never recivd his

There is no mention of seperation of Church and State in the constitution. Get a clue.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html


You are pretty lucky we were reviewing the constitution today.

Amemdment I, and I quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abriging 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.

Many philosophers contributed to the constitution; Specifically John Locke. Also, many of these things, like Amendment III that prevents the quartering of soldiers, was created because of the issues during the revolutionary war.

Anyway, if you are to argue that it is logical to place christian fundimentalists in places of scientific power, you apparently don't understand just how backwards that is.

You are a foolish person. You are wrong, this nation was founded by christians. Church and State seperation is a figment of the imagination of a secular Supreme Court. There is nothing in the Constitution about it. No one is trying to establish a thocracy, however, people would like the oppurtunity to practice their religion with out attacks from bigots.

Correction. This nation was founded by various, mostly Christian sects, but also small amounts of other influence, such as the deist Thomas Jefferson. "Separation of church and state" is a phrase coined to express in fewer words the first sentence of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." sound familiar? People would also like the opportunity to practice their non-Christian or lack of religion without Christianity-based laws interfering with their life.

Good. And you know of course, that history is open to interpretation. There are even some that think that the bombing of Hiroshima was wrong...

I think that the bombing of Hiroshima was wrong.

Of course, I don't claim that it didn't happen, or that the president who ordered it did so "because he was Christian," or any other such nonsense.

And people were people. But I think we can agree that the founding of the nation was neither wholly religious nor wholly secular?

The founding of the nation was done by religious people who believed very strongly in one's right (or even duty, as I'm sure Jefferson would have put it) to find their own beliefs.

Absolutely. But to say that the nation was not founded by Christians is extreme. It was, just not solely.

The *majority* of the founders were not Christian, and were certainly not fundamentalist Christian.

Fair enough, but that's how I read your post. My apologies. Yet some DID want the US to be a Christian nation, but they were (fortunately) not the majority.

I believe that *one* person suggested this. It was voted down almost unanimously.

There is no mention of seperation of Church and State in the constitution. Get a clue.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

If you want to be an idiot and ignore all the evidence to the contrary, go ahead.

"Dempublicents thinks that people with names like Areyoukiddingme are idiots and is amazed that they can even operate a computer."

^^^^ Look!! I didn't *technically* call you an idiot, not in so many words. I guess since I didn't actually use the words "You are an idiot," I didn't say it.

I think some people are catching onto the idea that ANY religion is going to be the antithesis of science.

Science is based on experimentation, and solid, tested, and proven theories.

Religion is based on the faith that "something is out there" that is beyond our comprehension. There is no science to religion, because there is no proof of God. Thats why I have *faith* in God, but no proof of him.

But, getting back to the original post, what Bush is doing is wrong. Very wrong. He is allowing science to be controlled by religion. The opposite of science is religion, there is no reasonable common sense behind this appointment.

*That* is why us Bush-bashers are so incredibly upset with this man as president.

There is no mention of seperation of Church and State in the constitution. Get a clue.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

"Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights."
That's a qoute from the web page. If that was the case why did the Founding Fathers not give everyone the right to vote?

I think that the bombing of Hiroshima was wrong.

Of course, I don't claim that it didn't happen, or that the president who ordered it did so "because he was Christian," or any other such nonsense.

I fully believe that the US should apologise as soon as Japan apologises for Pearl Harbor. Needless to say, it wasn't wrong from my chair.

So you don't believe that the "Great White Hunter" President Truman didn't just do it to impress the Soviets? (You'd be amazed how popular that interpretation is among racists.) What has Bush used the "Christian" card on?


The founding of the nation was done by religious people who believed very strongly in one's right (or even duty, as I'm sure Jefferson would have put it) to find their own beliefs.

Exactly.


The *majority* of the founders were not Christian, and were certainly not fundamentalist Christian.

Certainly not fundamentalist. As for majority, I could go digging. But I'd be really surprised if it wasn't 33-50% Christian.


I believe that *one* person suggested this. It was voted down almost unanimously.

I'll take your word for it, as it is not what I'm on about. My arguement is just that the nation was founded by Christians. Not solely by Christians, not that we're a Christian nation. But that we do have Christian tenets in as much as we do not believe in a central church but do believe in a God. :)

I think some people are catching onto the idea that ANY religion is going to be the antithesis of science.

This is a false dichotomy.

Science is based on experimentation, and solid, tested, and proven theories.

Religion is based on the faith that "something is out there" that is beyond our comprehension.

Both of which have areas to which they apply.

There is no science to religion, because there is no proof of God. Thats why I have *faith* in God, but no proof of him.

Exactly.

The US *was* founded by Christians.
That said, I don't see Roe v. Wade going away any time soon (if ever), nor a theocracy in the budding. Everyone knows that Cheney can't be President. For the GOP to win next election, they have to stay moderate.IN what alternate universe is the current Republican party moderate? Sure isn't in this one.

IN what alternate universe is the current Republican party moderate? Sure isn't in this one.

Well, they aren't conservative either.

Which means they are total wackos...

...nevermind. I answered my own question. Carry on.

There is no mention of seperation of Church and State in the constitution. Get a clue.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
So your point is that it's OK for America to become a theocracy?

Article 11[/b]
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

That's all the proof you need.
Well, they aren't conservative either.

Which means they are total wackos...

...nevermind. I answered my own question. Carry on.
They're reactionaries.

No one is trying to establish a thocracy, however, people would like the oppurtunity to practice their religion with out attacks from bigots.

ok, first of all, no-one is a bigot by asking for, even if a little harshly :p , a balanced view on medicine on one of the most prestigious boards in the US. all of the anti-religious right comes from people wanting to make sure that Church and State stay seperate so that the US doesn't become a Saudi Arabia for Christian Coalition members. I know that the religious right doesn't want to torture women, but, if contraceptives are banned, if abortion is banned, if all of these things that are affected by beliefs and politics are done, then there wont be room for simple research and development by impartial doctors trying to do a job. I'm Canadian and we don't have this sort of problem that often, so I realize I may be wrong to debate this, but from an outsider's view, the world depends of the US for these medical breakthroughs that come from people who want to help impartially.

On a side note, does the Bible even say anything against contraceptives? I mean, the Apostles couldn't have anticipated EVERYTHING, y'know? because, i don't think that having sex for the pleasure is something that can be restricted by a vocal minority. There are far more people that do this than not.

IN what alternate universe is the current Republican party moderate? Sure isn't in this one.

i'd say McCain is pretty moderate, i like him at least, and i'm a democrat. Well, actually, i'm more of a combination Liberal and Progressive Conservative, but nevermind that (is that how you spell nm)?

i'd say McCain is pretty moderate, i like him at least, and i'm a democrat. Well, actually, i'm more of a combination Liberal and Progressive Conservative, but nevermind that (is that how you spell nm)?
My idea of a moderate Republican is more along the lines of Olympia Snowe or Lincoln Chaffee than McCain. But even if I grant you McCain as moderate, he's not the face of the current Republican party. That face looks more like Rick Santorum or Tom Coburn or--and this is even more frightening--James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and those guys are about as far from moderate as you can get.

Well, they aren't conservative either.

Damn right they aren't.

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.
i read this and got a general feeling of some word similar to fright i cant remember

Dr. Hager, the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology.
i read this and knew we were fucked

i can FEEL griswold v conecticutt being overturned

i'd say McCain is pretty moderate, i like him at least, and i'm a democrat. Well, actually, i'm more of a combination Liberal and Progressive Conservative, but nevermind that (is that how you spell nm)?

If McCain had been voted in instead of Bush, I might still consider myself a republican.

He's like the non-horny, more honest version of Clinton. He's in one group, but he's not exactly out to annihilate the other.

But, instead, Dubya got in, and I renounced by republican status the instant I heard the words "Axis of eval!" and my mind generated an image of Luke vs. Vader.

i read this and got a general feeling of some word similar to fright i cant remember


i read this and knew we were fucked

i can FEEL griswold v conecticutt being overturned

Just be glad Mother Theresa's croaked. She tried to get birth control BANNED overseas.

You realize how nasty it would be if our government got her support about this?

If McCain had been voted in instead of Bush, I might still consider myself a republican.

He's like the non-horny, more honest version of Clinton. He's in one group, but he's not exactly out to annihilate the other.

that is SO FRIGGIN TRUE, its like anybody can like him w/o feeling disloyal.

What has Bush used the "Christian" card on?

Gay marriage ban?

Originally Posted by Markreich
>The US *was* founded by Christians.
>That said, I don't see Roe v. Wade going away any time soon (if ever), nor >a theocracy in the budding. Everyone knows that Cheney can't be >President. For the GOP to win next election, they have to stay moderate.

IN what alternate universe is the current Republican party moderate? Sure isn't in this one.

Actually, it pretty much is. Feel free to make a list of things that the GOP has done which has taken anything away from you. (No, Iraq and the Patriot Act don't count, unless you can document.). I don't think you can come up with much of a list. I know I can't.

You may not LIKE what the GOP has done recently (winning a majority in Congress, tax rebates, whatever), but there have been no Waco style attacks on the NAACP (a very anti-GOP group, btw). There has been (nor will there be) an anti-gay marriage amendment. Etc. The GOP (unlike the DEMS) have figured out a platform that allows them to WIN. Bugger the details.

That said, the GOP is *not* catering to the hardline "David Duke" and "Right of Reagan" Republicans. I'm not saying that Bush is a Democrat the way Clinton was a Republican. Not by a long shot!
But I *am* saying that (IMHO) the GOP is right now running perhaps (on a scale of 1-10) a 6.5 to 7 conservative agenda, whereas Clinton was a 4 and Reagan was a 9.

Gay marriage ban?

Now, go quote me the speech Bush used it in and you win a cookie. :D

i read this and got a general feeling of some word similar to fright i cant remember


i read this and knew we were fucked

i can FEEL griswold v conecticutt being overturned

Are you serious?? Aside from the Christian Fundamentalists, I can hardly think of anybody that is against birth control! Odds of that one getting overturned in today's society are about equal to re-establishing Prohibition or making Yale single sex again. It's just not gonna happen. (Thank goodness!)

(Besides: too much money in sex. You thing that any Republican wants to shut down a money stream??)

If I ever became president I would fill as many seats with non-christians as I could, then ban the Bible. Sure, it'd piss a lot of people off but I could just threaten them with the big red death button ;)
Oh my gosh, that is so funny. I would laugh so hard and totally agree with you if you did that. I'm atheist myself, and like to have a few chuckles at Bush once in a while.

George Bush is a menace, not just to his own country whcih he has already managed to destroy their economy, but also for the world. NO one wants a War craving Lunatic running around declaring war on everybody for bullsh*t reasons, (weapons of mass destruction my as*). Every time i hear bush making a dumbas* comment all i want to do is laugh, then i realize he controls the worlds deadliest army, then i want to do this :headbang: . At least i'm safe here Canada, at least for now.

NO one wants a War craving Lunatic running around declaring war on everybody for bullsh*t reasons

You're new to this board, aren't you?

I'm very very very sad to inform you of this, but you're extremely wrong.

Many people L:upyours: VE war.
:gundge:
____:mp5:
___:mp5:
:fluffle: :sniper: :headbang:
___:mp5:
____:mp5:
:gundge:
Look around.

But yes, definately stay in Canada. The US has some great stuff, but you aren't missing enough to come down here.

There is no mention of seperation of Church and State in the constitution. Get a clue.


Amendment 1, Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

You are a foolish person. You are wrong, this nation was founded by christians. Church and State seperation is a figment of the imagination of a secular Supreme Court. There is nothing in the Constitution about it. No one is trying to establish a thocracy, however, people would like the oppurtunity to practice their religion with out attacks from bigots.

The nation also flourished under the backs of blacks.

Things change.

John Adams - Christian
Ben Franklin - Christian
Thomas Jefferson - Christian
James Madison - Christian
Goerge Washington - Christian

So, what exactly was your point?

Actually, Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. As was Franklin. Washington and Madison were more or less Christian though, so you got two out of four. So that's a 50 F in history for you.

And this is why you are laughed at forum wide. Are you just going thru the motions of thinking, or are you actually making an effort? i hope you are just faking. Show me in the constitution any mention of seperation of Church and State.

The First Amendment. Now find any mention of God in it. There isn't.

Bush Bashers are mainly trying to preserve the rights of the minorities. If we were ruled purely by majority rule, minorities would not have very many rights. We would like to be led by a leader who will not use "Divine Intervention", sometimes called instinct, as a theoretical reason for unleashing nuclear weaponry. Also, we would like a nation that presents a positive face to the world, and we would prefer to gain allies than to lose them.

This next quote is why I don't support the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, read Hiroshima by John Hersey. This book is one of the reasons I hate nuclear weaponry.

"Japan was already defeated ... dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer necessary to save American lives..."

-General Dwight D.Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Very cool site, I usually score somewhere deep green, -6, -7 was one when I was angry.

Are you serious?? Aside from the Christian Fundamentalists, I can hardly think of anybody that is against birth control!
Unfortunately, the Christian fundamentalists (by nature of not believing in birth control) are quite numerous.

I believe nearly 50% of Mississippi is evangelical.

What do bush bashers want? Can't speak for them all, but having Bill back in office would be nice. Yeah, it needs a constitution change, but Pubbies want to get Arnold to be allowed in...

Somebody mentioned Maryland was a christian colony...Maryland was the state that allowed religious freedom first, if I remember my US AP, though Jews and Atheists werent allowed still.

As for the hiroshima/Pearl harbor comparison, it doesn't work. Pearl harbor was an attack on the US Navy, with a small number of civilian casualties that is often the result of military attacks. Hiroshima was the dropping of a High-explosive bomb on a city with very little military importance, it was a civilian target. The deaths of 1,800 americans or so in a military attack do not justify 120,000 civilians or so in a terrorist attack(Really, it was a bombing to scare the Japanese into surrenduring. Can't think of a better term).

The creators of the Constitution were diverse in theist beliefs, though the writer was a Diest. Whatever you wish to argue on that subject, the constitution itself, while permeating a certain christian moral undertone, has no support for actual religion, and the first amendment does not allow the government to adopt a state religion.

A majority of america is christian, yes. It doesn't make what Bush does right(or wrong), nor the majority right(or wrong).

--

For a more realistic want by a bush-basher, McCain in '08, though im an underage democrat(My mother literally votes for whoever I tell her to, though I will be of age by the elections).

Unfortunately, the Christian fundamentalists (by nature of not believing in birth control) are quite numerous.

I believe nearly 50% of Mississippi is evangelical.

They are a small minority nationwide. I'd put them at perhaps 5% for all of New York and New England combined... never mind California. :)

Yes, they're vocal. But they're a fringe group and they're certainly NOT being catered to. IF they ever were to have gotten their agenda done, it'd have been back in the 80s during Regan's 2nd term. Do you recall how big the Evangelical voice was back then?

It didn't happen. America right now is pretty balanced. No one side gets more than about 75% of what they want. That's why people aren't leaving in droves and/or there is no 3rd party.

And for that reason, neither party sees any good in going radical by courting this fringe's beliefs. :)

If McCain had been voted in instead of Bush, I might still consider myself a republican.

He's like the non-horny, more honest version of Clinton. He's in one group, but he's not exactly out to annihilate the other.

But, instead, Dubya got in, and I renounced by republican status the instant I heard the words "Axis of eval!" and my mind generated an image of Luke vs. Vader.
Actually
McCain is the guy waiting to gain power so he'll help either side. He has no backbone or at most he choses safety over the better way.

I'd feel bad if he won.

What do bush bashers want? Can't speak for them all, but having Bill back in office would be nice. Yeah, it needs a constitution change, but Pubbies want to get Arnold to be allowed in...

That is a really, really irresponsible statement. Almost NOBODY wants to amend the Constitution to get Arnold in. He's not even governed California for a year yet!! Shoot. I'd rather vote for Gephart! (And I'd rather have my eyes picked out by owls than do that!)
If you can show me where on the GOP website they're even THINKING about this, you win.


Somebody mentioned Maryland was a christian colony...Maryland was the state that allowed religious freedom first, if I remember my US AP, though Jews and Atheists werent allowed still.

A Lord Baltimore ruled Maryland for 8 generations, almost up to the French & Indian Wars. The original charter specified it was a Catholic haven, just as Georgia was created to empty England's "Debtor Prisons". It did allow for toleration. I don't know about the Jewish/Atheists provision you mention.


As for the hiroshima/Pearl harbor comparison, it doesn't work. Pearl harbor was an attack on the US Navy, with a small number of civilian casualties that is often the result of military attacks. Hiroshima was the dropping of a High-explosive bomb on a city with very little military importance, it was a civilian target. The deaths of 1,800 americans or so in a military attack do not justify 120,000 civilians or so in a terrorist attack(Really, it was a bombing to scare the Japanese into surrenduring. Can't think of a better term).

So how about this term: "Legitimate Target".

I'd have agreed with you, had Japan EVER limited itself to military targets only. When you consider the Korean "comfort women", the Rape of Nanking, the slaughter in the Philippeans, the million Asian civilians killed building the "Death Railway"... It comes down to this: the Japanese started the war with the Americans. The Americans had the right to use ANY means to end it.

By your analogy, the Allies should never have invaded on D-Day. They should have killed as many Nazis as they'd killed Allies, and then gone home. Needless to say, I find "war by numbers" to be silly. You fight for a REASON, a GOAL. War is NOT a game of "Risk"!


The creators of the Constitution were diverse in theist beliefs, though the writer was a Diest. Whatever you wish to argue on that subject, the constitution itself, while permeating a certain christian moral undertone, has no support for actual religion, and the first amendment does not allow the government to adopt a state religion.

Yep.

A majority of america is christian, yes. It doesn't make what Bush does right(or wrong), nor the majority right(or wrong).

I'm still trying to get SOMEBODY to POST something as to what Bush has done that has been specifically Christian. Aside from the fact that the man does pray and goes to services, I have yet to see anything.

This next quote is why I don't support the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, read Hiroshima by John Hersey. This book is one of the reasons I hate nuclear weaponry.

"Japan was already defeated ... dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer necessary to save American lives..."

-General Dwight D.Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Very cool site, I usually score somewhere deep green, -6, -7 was one when I was angry.

That you buy/borrow this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846

War's End: An Eyewitness Account of America's Last Atomic Mission by Charles W. Sweeney.

Sweeney was the only person to be on BOTH the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing missions, and so has a unique point of view about the whole affair.

Dan Rather had this to say:
"There is no arguing with his sober, compelling story...written with such detail, sweep, and compassion that it might have been a novel and not an autobiography. Charles Sweeney is the best kind of warrior, motivated by real patriotism. For setting straight a difficult record, his book is invaluable. For commemorating a generation of heroes, his book is unforgettable."

I read it several years ago, and it is *not* your standard History Channel primer. I highly recommend it, not because it will change your mind, but because it may give you a glimse into the times that were... and why things were done the way they were.

My score was (0.8 and 1.2). :D

I'm still trying to get SOMEBODY to POST something as to what Bush has done that has been specifically Christian. Aside from the fact that the man does pray and goes to services, I have yet to see anything.
when bush was asked if he consulted his dad (bush sr) about going to iraq he said "no, not that father". god told bush to go invade iraq, yay!

ooh and even better yet this. lets see, lets appoint all the heads of the various fundamentalist christian anti-birth control, abortion everything groups to the fda's reproductive board

oh yeah thats not christian, bush rules by a fundamentalist hand, period. he wants to ban gay marriage, ban abortion, and looks like he is for preventing birth control

Actually, it pretty much is. Feel free to make a list of things that the GOP has done which has taken anything away from you. (No, Iraq and the Patriot Act don't count, unless you can document.). I don't think you can come up with much of a list. I know I can't.

"The government hasn't actually used the act on you, so it doesn't count. Just like if they banned your freedom of religion, but only blew up mosques, it wouldn't count."

They are a small minority nationwide. I'd put them at perhaps 5% for all of New York and New England combined... never mind California. :)

Yes, they're vocal. But they're a fringe group and they're certainly NOT being catered to. IF they ever were to have gotten their agenda done, it'd have been back in the 80s during Regan's 2nd term. Do you recall how big the Evangelical voice was back then?

It didn't happen. America right now is pretty balanced. No one side gets more than about 75% of what they want. That's why people aren't leaving in droves and/or there is no 3rd party.

And for that reason, neither party sees any good in going radical by courting this fringe's beliefs. :)

Have you had your head up your ass for the past four years?

Nooo...he's saying that the government cannot make decisions that are based on religious code or ethics, and that is what the seperation of church and state are.

Actually the sort of seperation of Church and State referred to be the founders in the those linked quotes and as instituted in United States is nothing like that. People in government would be remiss in ignoring their religious beliefs on a particular matter, because in such cases they are being dishonest. Now there as some matters of morality that need by enforced by law (banning Murder for instance) and others that are purely a matter of choice (drug use and blasphemy for example) and thus should be given the force of law.

The seperation of Church and State refered to by the founders is meant as the opposite of the common European practice of the time, where an offical religion was established for a given country and fully funded by the government. A state-run church still exsists in the United Kingdom, but in most of Europe the church state relationship that was to be avoided in America is nolonger practiced.

Forcing people to check the religion at the doorstep would be like forcing a scientist to make decisions absent his knowledge.


You can practice all you want, but there are plenty of people in this country that don't believe in God, yet you are forcing those views and opinions if your regulations and mandates are guided by one specific religion...especially a scientific position.

Enacting legislation that does not establish a state run church or manadate church attendance or something along those lines does force views. However, legislation based upon religious ideals that regulate a particular part of life is apporpriate to the extent is does not infer with any rights.


Morals is not objective and defined ideal, it is a subjective viewpoint. Every person in this world has a different set of morals. Most are the same, the basic set are fairly universal, but they aren't always matched up.

Some would argue that the purpose of legislative assemblies is to discern the what natural law is. That is to say that morals are rightly based on an immutable, perment, and absolute set of a priniciples known as natural law, and that human law is supposed be what our collective understanding of natural law is. Therefore no ones morals are different, they are rather different interpretations of one set of natural law.



Gay Marriage. You may have a RELIGIOUS offense to gays, but in what way is it infringing on any of your rights? You are not being affected in any way, at all. Nothing you deal with would be changed because gay's legal status would allow to be married.

Marriage is not a matter of rights, no one has the right to marry. Marriages is instead designed to promote societal good by encouraging the development of optimal family situations. Meaning the reason marriage exsists as a state institution is provide the incentive to enter into arrangements that cannot legislated. The ideal family structure for the rearing of children is to have a mother and father jointly, who preferablly.

The exsistance of sub-optimal marriages to impune the intensions of the institution but may provide reason for abolishing the state sanction or for reforming the process. Marriage has been attacked for quite some time by straight forces seeking to making easily dissolvable and easily entered. They have taken away some the basic structure of the institution, however, gay marriage is in total contrast the intent of the institution (civily not necessarily the religous intention as some religions promote childless marriages).

The may be an argument for abolishing or reforming civil marriage, but it is wrong to say that those arguments justify the expension of marriage to such an extent as to be contrary to the fundemental goals.



I'm preaching equality and restraint, taking care to respect the views and wishes of ALL americans, not just your own, restricted viewpoints. See...that's called being open-minded.

The untruth of the statement should be self evident. In fact you are belittling and dismissing the views of the devout population in our society. That may be right (I would disagree however) but it is certainly not "respect[ing] views and wishes of ALL americans(sic)" nor is it "open-minded."

Argumentation the society has been uttly destroyed by "meta-argumentation." We have now chosen to argue more often about the argument closing the door to open debate. Complete open-mindedness is foolish, I'm an advocate for "unlocked" minds.

Actually the sort of seperation of Church and State referred to be the founders in the those linked quotes and as instituted in United States is nothing like that. People in government would be remiss in ignoring their religious beliefs on a particular matter, because in such cases they are being dishonest.

No one is saying that politicians can't be religious. No one is saying that politicians can't use their religion in making decisions. (After all, one cannot separate themselves entirely from their religion). However, if a law is based *entirely* in a religious belief, with no objective backing, it has no place in the law. Period. The legislators can pass it if they like, but it is unconstitutional to enforce it.

Forcing people to check the religion at the doorstep would be like forcing a scientist to make decisions absent his knowledge.

Forcing people to abide by another's religious belief when doing their own thing would harm no one is like chaining them to the wall and beating them for no reason.

However, legislation based upon religious ideals that regulate a particular part of life is apporpriate to the extent is does not infer with any rights.

Legislation that runs parallel to religious views is fine.

Legislation that is based *entirely* in religion removes the right of others to live by a different religion. Therefore, it interferes with their rights.

Marriage is not a matter of rights, no one has the right to marry. Marriages is instead designed to promote societal good by encouraging the development of optimal family situations. Meaning the reason marriage exsists as a state institution is provide the incentive to enter into arrangements that cannot legislated. The ideal family structure for the rearing of children is to have a mother and father jointly, who preferablly.

I hear this bullshit all the time. However, if you actually take the time to *look* at the protections provided by marriage, you find that almost *none* of them have anything at all to do with child rearing. Therefore, your assertion has no basis in truth.

Would you like to know why the government recognizes marriage? -- Because it is convenient to do so. Without recognizing marriage, the government structure would be unable to truly determine ownership/debt/custody/etc. in cases where people chose to live as a single unit. Many more people would be without healthcare, and would lose most of their possession when their "other half" died.

People who live their lives as a single entity are in a unique situation which leads to unique protections. Children can be, but are not in any way an essential part of this union. If the government would like to stop offering *all* such protections, it would be stupid - would end up with an extremely overburdened court system, millions more without healthcare, many more people losing their homes, etc - but it would be valid under the law. As it is, the government offers these protections to any *straight* couple that signs the paperwork and pays the fee. Under the 14th Amendment, it cannot fail to offer these *exact same protections* to homosexual couples without a damn good reason, which it does not have.

when bush was asked if he consulted his dad (bush sr) about going to iraq he said "no, not that father". god told bush to go invade iraq, yay!

ooh and even better yet this. lets see, lets appoint all the heads of the various fundamentalist christian anti-birth control, abortion everything groups to the fda's reproductive board

oh yeah thats not christian, bush rules by a fundamentalist hand, period. he wants to ban gay marriage, ban abortion, and looks like he is for preventing birth control

And John Kerry used to party with Michael Jackson by blowing small boys.

A LINK, my good man, a LINK!! :)

Have you had your head up your ass for the past four years?

No, but obviously you have yours now.

Debate me with documentable facts, or don't debate me at all, but flaming only shows you (and your opininos) in a poorer light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markreich
Actually, it pretty much is. Feel free to make a list of things that the GOP has done which has taken anything away from you. (No, Iraq and the Patriot Act don't count, unless you can document.). I don't think you can come up with much of a list. I know I can't.
____________________________

"The government hasn't actually used the act on you, so it doesn't count. Just like if they banned your freedom of religion, but only blew up mosques, it wouldn't count."

Care to name your source?
Or, is that your interpretation?

No, but obviously you have yours now.

Debate me with documentable facts, or don't debate me at all, but flaming only shows you (and your opininos) in a poorer light.

How exactly do you debate someone who has either been ignoring politics completely for the past four years or has no conception whatsoever of what has been done?

The idea that both sides of the issues have been getting equal play under the Bush administration is absolutely ludicrous.

The *only* opinion that Bush lets get past him is his own. Any that he doesn't like, he gets rid of or labels as "un-American" or "un-patriotic" or "evil."

This is reality darling, welcome in.

Care to name your source?
Or, is that your interpretation?

You are the one who said that the Patriot Act "doesn't count".

Never mind that it clearly allows the government to hold anyone they "suspect of terrorism" (in other words, anyone they care to accuse) without charge for an unlimited amount of time - clearly removing the right to due process (whether it has been used on me or not).

Never mind that it clearly allows government officials to peruse my library records, tap my phone, etc. *without a warrant* or any legal backing whatsoever if they claim to suspect me of terrorism and then use any "evidence" they find to bring me up on charges (if they choose to do so, instead of just holding me without charge). It hasn't happened to me *yet*, so as far as you are concerned, it "doesn't count."

Want my source? Read the Patriot Act.

And here we go, sans Patriot Act. The Bush administration has made all possible attempts to remove the objectivity of science and make the scientific community into a bunch of yes-men who simply acquiese to whatever Bush says.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

As this is my profession, the Bush administration has taken away a good bit of the integrity of my profession - and has taken away the possibility of me serving in the public arena without compromising ethics.

How exactly do you debate someone who has either been ignoring politics completely for the past four years or has no conception whatsoever of what has been done?

Oh, my dear lord. I'm SO SORRY for coming to a conclusion that isn't yours!!

Get real. Provide me with links to FACTS that prove your case, or don't debate me.

I've read TIME every week since 1982. I read the NY Times on the weekends, plus 2600 Mag, listen to NPR and get most of my news from MSNBC & BBC.
Ignored? Feh. It's the height of pomposity for you to say that just because I ask you for sources that I have no concept of politics.
Don't take that as an insult, it's not. It's me asking you to PLEASE think about what you just said.


The idea that both sides of the issues have been getting equal play under the Bush administration is absolutely ludicrous.

And the idea of a vast right wing conspiracy to hush the media is equally ludicrous. Again, post some proof of your accusations.


The *only* opinion that Bush lets get past him is his own. Any that he doesn't like, he gets rid of or labels as "un-American" or "un-patriotic" or "evil."

Yep.
Yet you're not making your case any more interesting to me by just spouting off. I always post links and documentation whenever I think it appropriate, and especially when asked for. You've yet to do so, therefore, I am at issue with you.

Just in case you haven't gotten it yet/I'm being unclear: I didn't say that you're totally wrong. I didn't say you're even partially wrong. But I DO SAY that I want to see where you're arguing from.


This is reality darling, welcome in.

If this is your reality, you need to turn off the computer and go outside. ;)

You are the one who said that the Patriot Act "doesn't count".

No I didn't. I said no such thing. You're MISquoting me, without the quoting!
Go back to post#55: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7679061&postcount=55
"Feel free to make a list of things that the GOP has done which has taken anything away from you. (No, Iraq and the Patriot Act don't count, unless you can document. ). I don't think you can come up with much of a list. I know I can't. "

Never mind that it clearly allows the government to hold anyone they "suspect of terrorism" (in other words, anyone they care to accuse) without charge for an unlimited amount of time - clearly removing the right to due process (whether it has been used on me or not).

Yes, that is more or less the statute. And it has effected your life how?

Never mind that it clearly allows government officials to peruse my library records, tap my phone, etc. *without a warrant* or any legal backing whatsoever if they claim to suspect me of terrorism and then use any "evidence" they find to bring me up on charges (if they choose to do so, instead of just holding me without charge). It hasn't happened to me *yet*, so as far as you are concerned, it "doesn't count."

Exactly. It no more effects you today than does the excessively high tarriff we have on imported windmill parts. Really.

Further, the feds never needed a warrent to tap your phone or investigate you, just a signed order from the judge. This is a holdover from the war on drugs.

Want my source? Read the Patriot Act.

I see the PA as a necessary piece of legislation at this time. I've read it before, and I have no objections to it as long as we're actively fighting terrorists. Same way that I am glad we no longer have embargoes against Poland, since they aren't Communist any more.

And here we go, sans Patriot Act. The Bush administration has made all possible attempts to remove the objectivity of science and make the scientific community into a bunch of yes-men who simply acquiese to whatever Bush says.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449


Thanks for the link, that was a good read. I particularly liked the "victories" section where they made a difference re: McDonalds, energy efficient vehicles and the climate change studies.
(For the record, I do believe that the Bush administration is not the most pro-Green one ever.)

However, I see no particular problems with the Arms Control Panel Dismissed, or the Forest Management issues. And the Abstinance Only story seemed kind of weak, since it's a local issue that the Prez has little say in.

The salmon is troubling. I'd heard about the florida panther on public radio.
The clean air standards is a biggie.


As this is my profession, the Bush administration has taken away a good bit of the integrity of my profession - and has taken away the possibility of me serving in the public arena without compromising ethics.

Only you can do that, as evil can only triumph when good people do nothing.
Me? I'm a network engineer that works in Manhattan. Needless to say, I'm more on the business side of the house.

That said, and having read most of the link: if the Feds are trying to run you down a particular road, how are they pulling it off? At least (here in Connecticut), I don't see a lot of people eating bald eagle and most folks are not buying SUVs (at least, not the ones I know)...

As for the hiroshima/Pearl harbor comparison, it doesn't work. Pearl harbor was an attack on the US Navy, with a small number of civilian casualties that is often the result of military attacks. Hiroshima was the dropping of a High-explosive bomb on a city with very little military importance, it was a civilian target. The deaths of 1,800 americans or so in a military attack do not justify 120,000 civilians or so in a terrorist attack(Really, it was a bombing to scare the Japanese into surrenduring. Can't think of a better term).
Actually, Japan had already offered several surrender notices to the USA. America's problem was that Japan wanted to keep her empires in Korea and China.

While Japan's imperialism was disgusting and genocidal, I think their empire could have been dismantled after the war without killing an extra 200,000 Japanese people in 1945.

Yes, that is more or less the statute. And it has effected your life how?

I now have to live knowing that my government can arrest me at any time, with only a hint of a suspicion. If I happen to be riding my bike somewhat near a protest, I can be arrested and held without charge for "supsicion of terrorism."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/22/convention.lawsuit.ap/index.html

Exactly. It no more effects you today than does the excessively high tarriff we have on imported windmill parts. Really.

Yeah, it doesn't affect me at all, until the feds decide they don't like something I'm reading and decide to arrest me.

Further, the feds never needed a warrent to tap your phone or investigate you, just a signed order from the judge. This is a holdover from the war on drugs.

Order from judge = warrant. After the Patriot Act, they don't even need that.

I see the PA as a necessary piece of legislation at this time. I've read it before, and I have no objections to it as long as we're actively fighting terrorists. Same way that I am glad we no longer have embargoes against Poland, since they aren't Communist any more.

Classic example of short-sightedness. Anything this broad can be used on *any citizen of this country.* The fact that they are currently (as far as we know) only using it on suspected terrorists (aka girls riding bikes near protests, protestors, Muslims of any type) and not affecting us personally must mean that it is a good law. After all, as long as no one busts in your door and holds you without charge, it simply isn't any of your business, right?

Thanks for the link, that was a good read. I particularly liked the "victories" section where they made a difference re: McDonalds, energy efficient vehicles and the climate change studies.
(For the record, I do believe that the Bush administration is not the most pro-Green one ever.)

I'm glad you read it, although you ignore the higher point. *Everyone* knew that Bush was not pro-green. However, these practices show an *alarming* interference with science. If Bush doesn't like what an advisor says (regardless of how much evidence there is to back it up), he simply fires them and hires an "advisor" with little to no standing in their field who is willing to say whatever Bush wants to hear.

If Bush doesn't want the public learning about a certain topic because he doesn't like it (aka nuclear cell transfer -- see the appendix at the end of the document - the USDA censorship list), he simply censors it. This is *ruining* the objectivity and inner workings of the scientific community as a whole - not just the environmental science.

And the Abstinance Only story seemed kind of weak, since it's a local issue that the Prez has little say in.

You *do* realize the billion dollar amounts of money Bush has put into abstinence only education. right?

The salmon is troubling. I'd heard about the florida panther on public radio.
The clean air standards is a biggie.

Yeah, I love the "I'll just call these salmon wild. That way I can let people start killing off an endangered species" mentality.

Only you can do that, as evil can only triumph when good people do nothing.

Did you actually read any of it? Anyone in the public sector with actual ethics just gets fired. You have to tell Bush whatever he wants to hear to keep working there.

Let's see...

Oh, my dear lord. I'm SO SORRY for coming to a conclusion that isn't yours!!

Get real. Provide me with links to FACTS that prove your case, or don't debate me.


Demands evidence of statements that disprove original statement, which wasn't supported.


And the idea of a vast right wing conspiracy to hush the media is equally ludicrous. Again, post some proof of your accusations.

Now, demands evidence to prove statement, without offering evidence against it.

Hmm, sounds like double standards to me.

If this is your reality, you need to turn off the computer and go outside. ;)

Finishes it off with an ad hominem attack in case anyone thought the poster was interested in an actual debate.

Nicely done.

The midly on topic, topics, of abstinence only sex education, currently being put into effect by Bush just amaze me. The fact that he is getting funding for this too is just simply amazing. Lets look at some facts now. Texas, Bush's homestate, is currently using the abstinence only sex ed method. Guess what? Texas has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. Another fact, around 50% of teens will probably have sex within their highschool career, regardless of abstinence education. Kids should be learning how to have safer sex not about not having it. Its going to happen whether this braindead moron in the whitehouse likes it or not.
Now maybe Bush doesn't want sex in highschool going on because it is a sin of the christian faith? Last time I checked the church and government were supposed to not be realted. Yes it doesn't specifically say that the government church shall be seperate in the constitution. But for those of us who dont need everything spelled out for us.. its in there. Shouldn't that seperation thing include that the governent can't plant funding planting christianity faithed organizations throughout the country? Guess not. That leads me to believe thats a reason as why they don't want gay marriage going on.
I want to ask the people at this forum if anyone can give me a decent reason on why gay marriage should not be legal. I mean a real logical decent reason. It is not like it is even a "huge" issue. not even 6 % of Americas population is openly gay. 6%.
give me a reason. I would be more than happy to hear it.
I would go on but I'd rather not be on this computer until two in the morning.

Let's see...

Demands evidence of statements that disprove original statement, which wasn't supported.

... and wasn't asked to be supported.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7682233&postcount=79
Here I'm ASKING for the person to list how the Patriot Act has effected them, as (apparently unlike you), I cannot read their minds. As it has had absolutely no direct effect on me, I felt it to be a valid question.
What sort of support do I need to say "The Patriot Act has had no direct effect on me?"


Now, demands evidence to prove statement, without offering evidence against it.


Originally Posted by Dempublicents:
The idea that both sides of the issues have been getting equal play under the Bush administration is absolutely ludicrous.
Originally Posted by Markreich:
And the idea of a vast right wing conspiracy to hush the media is equally ludicrous. Again, post some proof of your accusations.

...So, I need to offer evidence that under the Bush Administration that both sides of the issues are getting equal play?

Seems a bit much to me, that I need to personally prove the White House's credibility (before it's been disproven!) to post a retort that is just as vague as the reply.

Tell me, in your world, are you guilty until proven innocent? :D

But, since you insist:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6692775/
... if we were living in a pro-Bush press world, we'd never get stories like this.
QED.

Hmm, sounds like double standards to me.
Nah. Just sounds like you don't like my perpective, so you decide to be snide. But that's okay, I'm not offended.


Finishes it off with an ad hominem attack in case anyone thought the poster was interested in an actual debate.

So... one smarmy remark doesn't deserve another in your world, I guess. I've seen your kind of psuedo-intellectual analytics before, and they weren't any cuter when I was in the 8th grade back in the 80s.
Now, if YOU want to debate me, that's fine, and I look forward to some actual dialogue... as opposed to a few smart assed comments about my comments to another person.


Nicely done.

Thanks.

I now have to live knowing that my government can arrest me at any time, with only a hint of a suspicion. If I happen to be riding my bike somewhat near a protest, I can be arrested and held without charge for "supsicion of terrorism."

Sadly, that's not a particularly new problem. These people were innocent, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven


http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/22/convention.lawsuit.ap/index.html

Also nothing new to me here. :(
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16159&c=86
http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/features_section/2004-07/07222004dnc.asp

BTW, I am very much for personal liberties, as you can see in many of my posts in other threads. My point was not to say you don't have a problem to live with. My point is that the problem you percieve has been around a LOT longer than the Patriot Act!


Yeah, it doesn't affect me at all, until the feds decide they don't like something I'm reading and decide to arrest me.

Reading? We don't have the thought police. I'd call that a little overboard. :)


Order from judge = warrant. After the Patriot Act, they don't even need that.


Warrants were not always required before the Patriot Act:

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (warrantless entry of house by police in hot pursuit of armed robber);
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (warrantless and unannounced entry of dwelling by police to prevent imminent destruction of evidence).
"prompt inspections, even without a warrant, . . . in emergency situations." Camara, supra, at 539, citing North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (seizure of unwholesome food);
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (compulsory smallpox vaccination); Compagnie Francaise v. Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (health quarantine)
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/searches/tyler.htm (part 28)

...and while I'm not happy that in 2003 there were 1700 or so of these "super secret" warrants that are not disclosed, at least the warrants are still there.

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/news/stories/20040525/opinion/498753.html

Classic example of short-sightedness. Anything this broad can be used on *any citizen of this country.* The fact that they are currently (as far as we know) only using it on suspected terrorists (aka girls riding bikes near protests, protestors, Muslims of any type) and not affecting us personally must mean that it is a good law.

Um, the bicycle example is one of the Police arresting people near a demonstration, NOT the Patriot Act. Police stupidity? Certainly. Conspiracy? Nope.
Likewise, do you know what % of the protestors were actually arrested?
1800 over the course of a WEEK. That seems pretty low to me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5822306/

My point isn't to say that the 4th Amendment is a bad thing. My point is that the Patriot Act did NOT put those people in NYC during the RNC behind bars.


After all, as long as no one busts in your door and holds you without charge, it simply isn't any of your business, right?

That's still illegal (thank God). And no, I DON'T think it's any of my business. We have in place a law specifically set for fighting terrorism. Less than 2000 of these "silent warrants" issued in a land of over 280 million. I'll take those odds. Even further, it MUST be applied to fighting terrorism. They haven't even tried to use it against someone for (say) tax evasion.
I am not a huge fan of this law, but I see it as a temporary necessary evil.


I'm glad you read it, although you ignore the higher point. *Everyone* knew that Bush was not pro-green. However, these practices show an *alarming* interference with science. If Bush doesn't like what an advisor says (regardless of how much evidence there is to back it up), he simply fires them and hires an "advisor" with little to no standing in their field who is willing to say whatever Bush wants to hear.

Kind of like what Clinton did with the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, and the Department of Education. Every recent President is guilty of these shennanigans. No, it's not right. But I don't find it surprising.


If Bush doesn't want the public learning about a certain topic because he doesn't like it (aka nuclear cell transfer -- see the appendix at the end of the document - the USDA censorship list), he simply censors it. This is *ruining* the objectivity and inner workings of the scientific community as a whole - not just the environmental science.

Every recent President is guilty of these shennanigans. No, it's not right. But I don't find it surprising. :(


You *do* realize the billion dollar amounts of money Bush has put into abstinence only education. right?

Yeah, but I'm also of the opinion that we need to eliminate the entire Department of Education. We've spent BILLIONS on that over the past 30 odd years, and primary education in this nation, if anything, is WORSE than is was in the Ford years! (I worked in an urban school district for just under 4 years. I have a fair amount of experience with this topic).
No, I don't consider abstinence only to be right.


Yeah, I love the "I'll just call these salmon wild. That way I can let people start killing off an endangered species" mentality.

It's bad. Very, very bad.


Did you actually read any of it? Anyone in the public sector with actual ethics just gets fired. You have to tell Bush whatever he wants to hear to keep working there.

I did read it, but I don't have any real angle on it. I've never worked public sector, and (as I work in IT), I rarely see anyone with ethics anyway. This is a topic I just can't relate to. I sympathize, but I don't really understand. I was just wishing you well with dealing with it is all.

"What do Bush Bashers Want?"

Freedom,
Change,
and sound Policy.

I have no personal grievances with being pro'life, or beliving aborattion is wrong, I know I do. But I do have a problem with using one's personal beliefs to trampel anothers. Policy should be based on equaility and freedom, not religion and personal views. There are many good strong Christians who are liberal because we do not belive it our spot to force our beliefs on others. We would love it if we could convince, but not force.

Just win the damm war. The world's best army fighting a bunch of Arabs with limited success, this is embarassing. It makes America look weak.

Sadly, that's not a particularly new problem. These people were innocent, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven

Let me point out a few differences here:

(a) This protest turned into a riot. Therefore, arrests were proper (even if the particular people arrested were not.
(b) These people were not arrested on "suspicion of terrorism" and then held without charge.
(c) It was found that them being arrested was wrong. Under the patriot act, guilty or not - the arrest (and subsequent holding without charge for however long they wanted) would have been considered fine and proper.

Also nothing new to me here. :(
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16159&c=86
http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/features_section/2004-07/07222004dnc.asp

Irrelevant, as they are both post-Patriot Act.

BTW, I am very much for personal liberties, as you can see in many of my posts in other threads. My point was not to say you don't have a problem to live with. My point is that the problem you percieve has been around a LOT longer than the Patriot Act!

I never said that the problem hasn't been there. But it wasn't *LEGAL*. Therefore, there were ways to fight it. Now, these actions and removals of personal liberties are perfectly legal.

Reading? We don't have the thought police. I'd call that a little overboard. :)

Really? Why else would the FBI be given the authority to randomly dig through library records?

Warrants were not always required before the Patriot Act:

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (warrantless entry of house by police in hot pursuit of armed robber);

Obvious just cause. And, if caught, the person would still only be able to be held without charge for like 24 hours. Not so anymore.

Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (warrantless and unannounced entry of dwelling by police to prevent imminent destruction of evidence).

Ditto.

"prompt inspections, even without a warrant, . . . in emergency situations." Camara, supra, at 539, citing North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (seizure of unwholesome food);

Ditto.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (compulsory smallpox vaccination); Compagnie Francaise v. Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (health quarantine)
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/searches/tyler.htm (part 28)

Your link appears to be wrong, as there is nothing about smallpox vaccination or a quarantine in the link, so I won't respond here.

However, quarantine and vaccination also would demonstrate an obvious compelling interest.

Um, the bicycle example is one of the Police arresting people near a demonstration, NOT the Patriot Act. Police stupidity? Certainly. Conspiracy? Nope.
Likewise, do you know what % of the protestors were actually arrested?
1800 over the course of a WEEK. That seems pretty low to me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5822306/

And some of the people arrested weren't even protestors.

Here is the point, some people were just nearby, but were able to be arrested on "suspicion of terrorism" and held without charge. It was a perfectly legal action under the Patriot Act.

My point isn't to say that the 4th Amendment is a bad thing. My point is that the Patriot Act did NOT put those people in NYC during the RNC behind bars.

Oh? What exactly were they arrested for then?

That's still illegal (thank God). And no, I DON'T think it's any of my business.

As long as they say that they are doing so due to "supsicion of terrorism," it is *perfectly* legal now.

We have in place a law specifically set for fighting terrorism. Less than 2000 of these "silent warrants" issued in a land of over 280 million. I'll take those odds.

Again, short-sightedness. "They aren't misuing this power yet, so I guess they never will..."

Even further, it MUST be applied to fighting terrorism. They haven't even tried to use it against someone for (say) tax evasion.

They don't have to. They don't have to show just cause for an arrest anymore, they simply have to state "suspicion of terrorism." They could arrest someone by saying that, and then hold them without charge indefinitely. If their investigation doesn't turn up terrorism, but just *happens* to turn up tax evasion - *shrug*, them's the breaks.

I am not a huge fan of this law, but I see it as a temporary necessary evil.

Temporary or not, it is *very* bad precedent.

Every recent President is guilty of these shennanigans. No, it's not right. But I don't find it surprising. :(

Wrong. People who have served in the public sector, under different presidents, for 30 years have stated that the Bush administration has censored and politicized science *to an unprecedented degree*. Even those who worked under Bush Sr. have stated this. So no, every recent president is *not* guilty of this.

I did read it, but I don't have any real angle on it. I've never worked public sector, and (as I work in IT), I rarely see anyone with ethics anyway. This is a topic I just can't relate to. I sympathize, but I don't really understand. I was just wishing you well with dealing with it is all.

Science without ethics is useless.

Let us not forget that at its core, the Chicago Seven was solely and completely an issue amongst Democrats in a Democratic Party that was coming apart at the seams.

Richard Daley was NOT a Republican. The President at the time, Lyndon Johnson, was NOT a Republican.

Want to see an episode where part of the Democratic Party denies the other part the right to speak at the party Convention?

That's a classic. And Not One Bit was the doing of Republicans. Even the Vietnam War was started by Democrats.

Let us not forget that at its core, the Chicago Seven was solely and completely an issue amongst Democrats in a Democratic Party that was coming apart at the seams.

Richard Daley was NOT a Republican. The President at the time, Lyndon Johnson, was NOT a Republican.

Want to see an episode where part of the Democratic Party denies the other part the right to speak at the party Convention?

That's a classic. And Not One Bit was the doing of Republicans. Even the Vietnam War was started by Democrats.

Wrong Vietnam was started by France.

Wrong Vietnam was started by France.

Even better... the far sighted and all-wise country that kept itself out of the Iraq war by selling Iraq billions in weapon systems...

And this is why you are laughed at forum wide. Are you just going thru the motions of thinking, or are you actually making an effort? i hope you are just faking. Show me in the constitution any mention of seperation of Church and State.


Show me in the constitution any mention of church.

To justify their hatred of America by explaining it all away as hatred of Bush.

To justify their hatred of America by explaining it all away as hatred of Bush.

Hmmm.... I don't hate America, in fact I hate Bush *because* I love the US and the ideals it is *supposed* to espouse. Funny, that.

Wrong Vietnam was started by France.

Which was supplied by every increasing aid and advisers by Kennedy (a Democrat) and expanded after by Johnson (a Democrat). ;)

Let me point out a few differences here:

(a) This protest turned into a riot. Therefore, arrests were proper (even if the particular people arrested were not.
(b) These people were not arrested on "suspicion of terrorism" and then held without charge.
(c) It was found that them being arrested was wrong. Under the patriot act, guilty or not - the arrest (and subsequent holding without charge for however long they wanted) would have been considered fine and proper.

a) How about the pre-riot arrests? Were those then improper?
b) You're right. They were arrested on highly questionable charges to create a media circus.
c) I'll take your word on that one, as I do not know.


Irrelevant, as they are both post-Patriot Act.

Ah, so you want pre-Patriot Act taking away of civil liberties by authorities? No problem:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/23/scotus.wrap/


I never said that the problem hasn't been there. But it wasn't *LEGAL*. Therefore, there were ways to fight it. Now, these actions and removals of personal liberties are perfectly legal.

Right. On a limited, temporary basis. The same way mail and news were censored during World War 2, and you had to keep your lights out at night if you lived on the coast in 1941-1945.


Really? Why else would the FBI be given the authority to randomly dig through library records?


To build a case on a specific individual as to what they are researching?
If (say) John Jones is a known Al-Queda agent, and he's been taking out lots of books on flight or fertilizer, I think that'd be useful for them to know.

BTW, if you use a credit card, shoppers discount card (grocery store, for example), etc, they already can find out WAY more about you than from your library records.

Obvious just cause. And, if caught, the person would still only be able to be held without charge for like 24 hours. Not so anymore.

Right. IF they are hit with one of those 1700 warrants last year. It's NOT every cop on EVERY case in America doing this! It's a VERY limited scope!
It needs watching to not be abused, of course.

Your link appears to be wrong, as there is nothing about smallpox vaccination or a quarantine in the link, so I won't respond here.

The link was to the case names. If you want to look up each case, throw them into google.

However, quarantine and vaccination also would demonstrate an obvious compelling interest.

I'll leave it to you if you wish to research it.

And some of the people arrested weren't even protestors.

Right. That *happens*. You know, when they bust a crack house, they arrest everyone in the apartment or house, even if one of them was just delivering pizza.

Here is the point, some people were just nearby, but were able to be arrested on "suspicion of terrorism" and held without charge. It was a perfectly legal action under the Patriot Act.

None were held more than 24 hours.

Oh? What exactly were they arrested for then?

By overzealous cops.

As long as they say that they are doing so due to "supsicion of terrorism," it is *perfectly* legal now.

Show me where anyone was held for more than 24 hours.

Again, short-sightedness. "They aren't misuing this power yet, so I guess they never will..."

No, as I said above it needs to be watched to make sure it is not abused. Which, to date, I don't see it being.

They don't have to. They don't have to show just cause for an arrest anymore, they simply have to state "suspicion of terrorism." They could arrest someone by saying that, and then hold them without charge indefinitely. If their investigation doesn't turn up terrorism, but just *happens* to turn up tax evasion - *shrug*, them's the breaks.

*YES THE DO!*
They first need one of those sealed warrants, remember? This is not like getting a normal warrant, and is the exception, not the rule.

Temporary or not, it is *very* bad precedent.

It has been done before in the War on Drugs (wiretaps used to not be legal, either), in other wars (censorship, esp.).

Wrong. People who have served in the public sector, under different presidents, for 30 years have stated that the Bush administration has censored and politicized science *to an unprecedented degree*. Even those who worked under Bush Sr. have stated this. So no, every recent president is *not* guilty of this.

I'll take your word on that, too, as I don't know who these people you're talking about are.

But you misinterpret me. My point was that EVERY President is guilty of some sort of shennanigan that pisses off somebody. Reagan basically destroyed the unions. Clinton reformed welfare, much to the angst of lots of Great Society types. Et cetera.


Science without ethics is useless.

Actually, Science without ethics is dangerous.
And I'm NOT arguing that it should be that way.

Please stop this madness you religious righties! Are you completely insane? Can't you see we are not a nation founded by Christians and dont wish to become a theocracy? If you don't believe in the seapration of church and state then you are not a true American and should go find another country to ruin.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....Surely you weren't serious? If you were, I pity you, you'll probably end up working in McDonalds the rest of your life.

1)Yes, it was.
2)Since when has the religious right wanted that?
3)We do believe in seperation of church and state-Its true meaning, "the state shall not interfere in the affairs of the church. Liberals have made it into the exact opposite.
4)WE'VE ruined this country? Seemed to me that under the guidance of Christians for the first 150 years of this country we managed to become the most powerful nation in the world. And, in the 50 years Christianity has been shut out of every public place, the nation is in chaos. Funny how that works, isn't it?

1)Yes, it was.

This person hasn't studied history *at all*.

2)Since when has the religious right wanted that?

Since they started.

3)We do believe in seperation of church and state-Its true meaning, "the state shall not interfere in the affairs of the church. Liberals have made it into the exact opposite.

It's *true* meaning is "the state shall not exercise control over religion and no specific religion shall exercise control over the state." It was meant to be a protection for *both* sides of the equation, as the only thing that comes from mixing the two is corruption of both.

4)WE'VE ruined this country? Seemed to me that under the guidance of Christians for the first 150 years of this country we managed to become the most powerful nation in the world. And, in the 50 years Christianity has been shut out of every public place, the nation is in chaos. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Christianity has only tried to take over the government since the '50's. The founding fathers were *very* clear that this was not meant to be a Christian state - that the country was not *in any way* founded upon Christianity. No one tried injecting religion into government (at least not on a large scale basis) until the McCarthy era. And it is ever since *then* that you say the nation has been in chaos. Interesting...

Feh...fine.

1)Which is why the Founding Fathers recognized that every nation was subject to God, and why they thanked God for allowing them to form their government in every single one of the state's constitutions. Right.
2)Okay, fine, maybe others do, not I.
3)Exactly, but people have interpreted it to mean that the state shall not acknowledge that religion even exists.
4)Since that was when the government started moving away from Judeo-Christian morals and towards the secular morals it has today.

And I say chaos because that is what it is. Illegitmacy is up, crime is skyrocketing, gun violence is up, every craziness and death. I'm not complaining, it's keeping the population down, but I think it comes from moving away from good sensible morals just because they come from religion.

Feh...fine.

1)Which is why the Founding Fathers recognized that every nation was subject to God, and why they thanked God for allowing them to form their government in every single one of the state's constitutions. Right.

Notice that they did not say "the Christian God." All of the Founding Fathers recognized that there was a *Creator.* Very few of them saw this Creator as being the Christian version of God.

And do realize that there was a suggestion that the preamble to the Constitution contain a reference to Jesus Christ. It was *almost unanimously* voted down.

Also, see the Treaty of Tripoli.

3)Exactly, but people have interpreted it to mean that the state shall not acknowledge that religion even exists.

I have never seen any such interpretation.

4)Since that was when the government started moving away from Judeo-Christian morals and towards the secular morals it has today.

Wrong. As I pointed out, it wasn't until the McCarthy era that people *started trying* to inject Christianity into the Constitution. Until then, it was recognized that the US was *founded* as a nation which recognized *all* religious belief *equally*.

If you want to be an idiot and ignore all the evidence to the contrary, go ahead.

"Dempublicents thinks that people with names like Areyoukiddingme are idiots and is amazed that they can even operate a computer."

^^^^ Look!! I didn't *technically* call you an idiot, not in so many words. I guess since I didn't actually use the words "You are an idiot," I didn't say it.
Just stooping to the level af my fellow poster (hint: that means you).

"Areyoukiddingme doesn't think about dempublicents because he is lowly and not woth the time." SWAT!

Just stooping to the level af my fellow poster (hint: that means you).

"Areyoukiddingme doesn't think about dempublicents because he is lowly and not woth the time." SWAT!

Wow, you really don't get sarcasm, do you?

By the way, I'm not a he.

I dunno where've you been, but it's all over the place. Some town in California had to take down a cross they had put up as a landmark because it was a religious symbol.

The trouble is, the US does NOT treat all religions equally. The movie industry would never purposely offend Islamics, Jews, secularists, atheists, Buddhists, or Hindus, but they don't think twice about offending Christians. Wait, just realized that's not the government. Okay, fine, so the government does treat all religions equally, and it always has. STOP USING YOUR LOGIC ON ME!

I dunno where've you been, but it's all over the place. Some town in California had to take down a cross they had put up as a landmark because it was a religious symbol.

If this is true, the government put it up, therefore it was showing government preference for a certain religion.

However, no one could make an individual take down a cross that *they* put up.

The trouble is, the US does NOT treat all religions equally. The movie industry would never purposely offend Islamics, Jews, secularists, atheists, Buddhists, or Hindus, but they don't think twice about offending Christians.

You apparently don't watch many movies, considering that the movie industry purposely offends *everyone*.

Wait, just realized that's not the government. Okay, fine, so the government does treat all religions equally, and it always has. STOP USING YOUR LOGIC ON ME!

hehe.

If this is true, the government put it up, therefore it was showing government preference for a certain religion.

However, no one could make an individual take down a cross that *they* put up.



You apparently don't watch many movies, considering that the movie industry purposely offends *everyone*.



hehe.
You are ignorant of your surrondings at almost a pathological level.

You are ignorant of your surrondings at almost a pathological level.

Oh really? Because I watch movies? Because I have actually studied the government? Or because you just had nothing better to say?

Just about every religion and style of spirituality that anyone knows about has been mocked, often in extremely nasty ways if its one most people fear.

You have to seriously dodge the movies if you've never noticed a film or other visual media that makes fun of Judaism, Wicca, Voodoo, Paganism, Hinduism, Islam, Atheism.. we've all taken our kicks in the groin.

Just that Christians WHINE about it more, even though they tend to get more props than the other religions.

Heck, many of the films that are pro-Christianity STILL make Christians whine.

Dogma and Last Temptation, anyone?

Of course, many high school Christians I've dealt with were still fans of... Veggie Tales... so...

Maybe insanity isn't so surprising...

Just about every religion and style of spirituality that anyone knows about has been mocked, often in extremely nasty ways if its one most people fear.

You have to seriously dodge the movies if you've never noticed a film or other visual media that makes fun of Judaism, Wicca, Paganism, Hinduism, Islam, Atheism.. we've all taken our kicks.

Just that Christians WHINE about it more, even though they tend to get more props than the other religions.

Heck, many of the films that are pro-Christianity STILL make Christians whine.

Dogma and Last Temptation, anyone?
dogma starred jay and silent bob, for alot of it it was making fun of christianity

dogma starred jay and silent bob, for alot of it it was making fun of christianity

It had fun with it, and it certainly mocked the Church.

But it gave props to the faith itself.

Unless you -really- hate Alanis, I suppose.

Just going to put me two sense in before going out.... you yanks in general whine. The reason your goverment is so messed up is becuase the populace itself has its head so far in its ass that you can not see logic. I swear the day a yank asks me if I live in an igloo (im Canadian if you can't tell) ill kill im on site. You bloody wankers, get it straight... As for the church an state thing: religion is just a way for a man of little logic to justify his own stupidity... why we believe something so beautifully incompetant I may never no... I myself am a Seur'Gothian, and proud of it... e-mail is beech316@hotmail.com, post me if you wanna talk it over.

Just going to put me two sense in before going out.... you yanks in general whine. The reason your goverment is so messed up is becuase the populace itself has its head so far in its ass that you can not see logic. I swear the day a yank asks me if I live in an igloo (im Canadian if you can't tell) ill kill im on site. You bloody wankers, get it straight... As for the church an state thing: religion is just a way for a man of little logic to justify his own stupidity... why we believe something so beautifully incompetant I may never no... I myself am a Seur'Gothian, and proud of it... e-mail is beech316@hotmail.com, post me if you wanna talk it over.
you mean you DONT live in an igloo? damnit
*strikes living in igloos off the lists of things known about canadians*

Just going to put me two sense in before going out.... you yanks in general whine. The reason your goverment is so messed up is becuase the populace itself has its head so far in its ass that you can not see logic. I swear the day a yank asks me if I live in an igloo (im Canadian if you can't tell) ill kill im on site. You bloody wankers, get it straight... As for the church an state thing: religion is just a way for a man of little logic to justify his own stupidity... why we believe something so beautifully incompetant I may never no... I myself am a Seur'Gothian, and proud of it... e-mail is beech316@hotmail.com, post me if you wanna talk it over.

Quit your whining about whiners

I myself am a Seur'Gothian, and proud of it... e-mail is beech316@hotmail.com, post me if you wanna talk it over.


Did you make that up? Is that your Dungeons and Dragons character?

dogma starred jay and silent bob, for alot of it it was making fun of christianity

^^ Obviously missed the entire point of the movie.

^^ Obviously missed the entire point of the movie.

did he see the same movie I did?

^^ Obviously missed the entire point of the movie.
Must have missed the movie … lol it did not star jay and silent bob … they were sub characters at best

Lol
Only movie they were “main” characters in was Jay and silent bob strikes back

(btw cant wait for the new clerks movie to come out)

Must have missed the movie … lol it did not star jay and silent bob … they were sub characters at best

Lol
Only movie they were “main” characters in was Jay and silent bob strikes back

(btw cant wait for the new clerks movie to come out)

Yeah, my guess would be that his/her pastor was all like "Don't go see this movei!! They make fun of Christianity!! It has vile characters in it!!!" and his entire perception came from that sermon.

I used to date a Catholic guy who absolutely refused to go see it (even though the *Catholic* church never actually officially condemned it - only the Southern Baptist and a few other fundie churches did.)

^^ Obviously missed the entire point of the movie.
the entire movie was making a joke of catholicism while making some point

the entire movie was making a joke of catholicism while making some point

No, the entire movie was making a point about dogmatic thinking and blindly following it. The point was that faith is the part that is necessary - not all the dogmatic bullshit the church added in over the years.

Yeah, my guess would be that his/her pastor was all like "Don't go see this movei!! They make fun of Christianity!! It has vile characters in it!!!" and his entire perception came from that sermon.

I used to date a Catholic guy who absolutely refused to go see it (even though the *Catholic* church never actually officially condemned it - only the Southern Baptist and a few other fundie churches did.)
Correct and though I don’t really see how it was making fun of them. Really to me just seemed like a different viewpoint on their faith not really saying “this belief is stupid” it had some insightful characters some silly attitudes

(things like the 13th apostle I can see MAYBE)

Though I think what upset them the most was the fact that god was female in the end of the movie :P

No, the entire movie was making a point about dogmatic thinking and blindly following it. The point was that faith is the part that is necessary - not all the dogmatic bullshit the church added in over the years.
Also got to love buddy Christ :)

Though I think what upset them the most was the fact that god was female in the end of the movie :P

Never mind that the movie *specifically* pointed out that God is really neither male nor female.

No, the entire movie was making a point about dogmatic thinking and blindly following it. The point was that faith is the part that is necessary - not all the dogmatic bullshit the church added in over the years.
like isaid, the whole movie was making a joke of catholicism

like isaid, the whole movie was making a joke of catholicism

It was making jokes about parts of Catholocism. However, who better to poke a little fun at the silly parts of Catholocism than a Catholic?