NationStates Jolt Archive

Heres the big question. If you had to change one law in your country, just one (or add a law). What would you change (add)?

Hmm.... I could add a law that excuses me from all other laws.

*poof*

all drugs are legal for sale and regulated like alcohol

Only one, eh?

Ban private donations to political parties, and allocate each party an equal share of public money for their campaign.

Would solve a lot of problems, IMO, and help to bring some semblance of democracy back to the people.

Only one, eh?

Ban private donations to political parties, and allocate each party an equal share of public money for their campaign.

Would solve a lot of problems, IMO, and help to bring some semblance of democracy back to the people.

I'd actually do the opposite. I'd ban public funding of political parties and allow only individual donations (no corporate or union donors), capped at $1000/person/year.

Only one, eh?

Ban private donations to political parties, and allocate each party an equal share of public money for their campaign.

Would solve a lot of problems, IMO, and help to bring some semblance of democracy back to the people.

I agree with this myself.

I'd actually do the opposite. I'd ban public funding of political parties and allow only individual donations (no corporate or union donors), capped at $1000/person/year.

Well, the cap is an improvement I guess.

You'd need safeguards, though, I bet some corporations would be unscrupulous enough to include a yearly $1000 donation to a certain party as part of your condition of employment. :p

Only one, eh?

Ban private donations to political parties, and allocate each party an equal share of public money for their campaign.

Would solve a lot of problems, IMO, and help to bring some semblance of democracy back to the people.

But then incentive for funding is lessened meaning less money for the government overall.

100th post! 1 am teh l33tst!

But then incentive for funding is lessened meaning less money for the government overall.

The government collects its money through tax. They don't lose out.

Political parties as institutions are independent from the governmental body. At least in multi-party democracies, anyway. The major change as a result of this is that every party gets an equal voice.

Guess I'd have to go with decriminalizing marijuana and regulating/taxing it just like alcohol. As a rider, I'd add incentives for the exploitation of the many uses of industrial hemp.

i would make it a law that election days are aslo federal hollidays for all (except those that have to run the polls of course)

its insane how many people have to try to fit voting in on their lunch break

Only one, eh?

Ban private donations to political parties, and allocate each party an equal share of public money for their campaign.

Would solve a lot of problems, IMO, and help to bring some semblance of democracy back to the people.

I want to live there. I'll declare myself a party run for office and live off the taxpayers

The government collects its money through tax. They don't lose out.

Political parties as institutions are independent from the governmental body. At least in multi-party democracies, anyway. The major change as a result of this is that every party gets an equal voice.

Of course the government gets most its money through tax, im not that stupid. But if you ban funding from individuals or companies to one party, most people wont want to fund all three partie. Im actually not sure how much money goes into the government independently, if it is very little then it doesn't matter but if it's a lot then at least the party will be able to do good with it (hopefully).

*poof*

all drugs are legal for sale and regulated like alcohol


that is the best idea posted so far, think of the senoritas

Well, the cap is an improvement I guess.

You'd need safeguards, though, I bet some corporations would be unscrupulous enough to include a yearly $1000 donation to a certain party as part of your condition of employment. :p

We should be able to find a way around that. Steep fines. Hidden records. We'll think of something.

Of course the government gets most its money through tax, im not that stupid. But if you ban funding from individuals or companies to one party, most people wont want to fund all three partie. Im actually not sure how much money goes into the government independently, if it is very little then it doesn't matter but if it's a lot then at least the party will be able to do good with it (hopefully).

Why only three parties?

Why only three parties?

Im not sure, im being a bit careless with my typing.

I want to live there. I'll declare myself a party run for office and live off the taxpayers
Which won't work, because, to cite an example, under the law of my country (Australia), to be officially recognised as a political party does take a lot of effort. You're required to show a level of background support amongst the community. I forget exactly, but I think it's at least 2000 signatures in a certain electorate. To run for federal parliament, it might be more, but I confess that I haven't actually read up on that for a couple of years.

If you lose that base, you're no longer a party. Good luck.

Not to mention that there would obviously be restrictions on what each party can spend it's funding on, much as current MPs face.

Of course the government gets most its money through tax, im not that stupid. But if you ban funding from individuals or companies to one party, most people wont want to fund all three partie. Im actually not sure how much money goes into the government independently, if it is very little then it doesn't matter but if it's a lot then at least the party will be able to do good with it (hopefully).

Well, i'd argue that it's necessary to further democracy. I don't want my tax money going to quite a few certain causes; but at least this one is going to have tangible benefits; and the overall cost need not be especially large.

Repeat drunk drivers lose their driver's licence permanently and the right to own an automobile.

I've seen to many innocent people get killed by careless idiots to demand anything less.

Which won't work, because, to cite an example, under the law of my country (Australia), to be officially recognised as a political party does take a lot of effort. You're required to show a level of background support amongst the community. I forget exactly, but I think it's at least 2000 signatures in a certain electorate. To run for federal parliament, it might be more, but I confess that I haven't actually read up on that for a couple of years.

If you lose that base, you're no longer a party. Good luck.

Not to mention that there would obviously be restrictions on what each party can spend it's funding on, much as current MPs face.

I hardly think those restrictions are obvious. The rules governing political parties differ a lot from place to place.

In Canada, the rules governing provincial parties are vastly different in different provinces. In Alberta, it's quite difficult to maintain your official party status over time, so there are usually only 5-6 registered parties at a time. In British Columbia, it's quite difficult to lose your party status, so there are currently over 30 registered parties.

The main reason I object to public funding of political parties is exactly these sorts of abuses. Plus, if the system is already there to fund the parties, what's to stop a future government from tweaking the rules to favour its own party?

I also don't see how political funding is the government's job.

Free speech actually means free speech.

Ban heterosexual marriage.

Well, damn, if it can only be just one...

I would make religion 100% illegal.

No religion= no religious right- so marijuana legalization, gay marriage legal, abortion legal, etc would logically follow that. It might also help with those pesky terrorists if we are not "Christian Crusaders" anymore.

perhaps i would change the law so that just being born in the united states does not make you a citizen so illegal immigrants can not have a child here and be protected from being deported

Free speech actually means free speech.

How does it not, now?

Aside from restrictions on hate speech (which I'll agree are dumb), what about free speech isn't free speech?

Well, damn, if it can only be just one...

I would make religion 100% illegal.

No religion= no religious right- so marijuana legalization, gay marriage legal, abortion legal, etc would logically follow that. It might also help with those pesky terrorists if we are not "Christian Crusaders" anymore.

hmmm...

so hows high school going?

It is the fundamental right of every human being to defend him/her self and their family as they see fit, therefore the right to keep and bear arms by a lawfull citizen shall not be abridged.

hmmm...

so hows high school going?

School? I was out of grad school 4 years ago. Just because I am an atheist who finds the influence of religion in the governemnt to be the #1 problem we face doesn't make me 16.

In weightlifting, I don't think sudden uncontrolled urination should automatically disqualify you.

School? I was out of grad school 4 years ago. Just because I am an atheist who finds the influence of religion in the governemnt to be the #1 problem we face doesn't make me 16.

no but the fact that you think religion can be banned and that solves all the worlds problems

even if religion could be banned (which is completely impossible to enforce) it would not change the views of people and they will not instantly accept all of your great atheist wisdom

It might also help with those pesky terrorists if we are not "Christian Crusaders" anymore.

Yeah, that sure worked out well for the USSR.:rolleyes:

no but the fact that you think religion can be banned and that solves all the worlds problems

even if religion could be banned (which is completely impossible to enforce) it would not change the views of people and they will not instantly accept all of your great atheist wisdom

I am not going to hijack this thread and begin ranting about how religion IS the root cause of all the world's problems, but I am going to question your motives since you aparently think baning heterosexual marriage and one man political parties are humorous topics; yet the mere mention of doing away with your archaic superstitions brings out your condescending self-righteousness.

Yeah, that sure worked out well for the USSR.:rolleyes:

Well, to be fair, the USSR did invade their country. (I assume you are speaking of Afghanistan)

I think I'd make any kind of war except a purely defensive one illegal.

I am not going to hijack this thread and begin ranting about how religion IS the root cause of all the world's problems, but I am going to question your motives since you aparently think baning heterosexual marriage and one man political parties are humorous topics; yet the mere mention of doing away with your archaic superstitions brings out your condescending self-righteousness.

well banning heterosexual marriage doesnt even deserve a response and one man political parties i sense sarcasm in that. BUT with your comments the funny thing is that your not trying to be funny. you seriously think atheist are far superior then anyone in any religion.

you seem to be all about acceptance (gay marriage, legalising drugs, etc...) but yet you seem to be unable to accept people accepting religion

Well, to be fair, the USSR did invade their country. (I assume you are speaking of Afghanistan)

Notice any similarities?

Religion in and of it self is not evil it is when those of a particular faith choose to enforce their faith on others. Religion is too important of a crutch to be outlawed but you could realisticly outlaw all public displays of religion. This keeps the crutch in place and the zealots in check.


I am not going to hijack this thread and begin ranting about how religion IS the root cause of all the world's problems, but I am going to question your motives since you aparently think baning heterosexual marriage and one man political parties are humorous topics; yet the mere mention of doing away with your archaic superstitions brings out your condescending self-righteousness.

well banning heterosexual marriage doesnt even deserve a response and one man political parties i sense sarcasm in that. BUT with your comments the funny thing is that your not trying to be funny. you seriously think atheist are far superior then anyone in any religion.

Well, that is true- I do think you are all suffering from a massive delusion.

But my initial response was a joke- it seemed the only way to get all the different laws I wanted past the "one law" stipulation of the OP. And unless we were to euthanise everyone who insisted on believing in an invisible parent figure, true abolishment of religion is impossible. I didn't want to go into all that, but aparently someone shit in my cereal this morning, because your "high school" comment pissed me off.

Notice any similarities?

Not really. They started it!

(*jumps up and down pointing finger*)


Seriously, before 9/11, Americans didn't give a shit one way or the other about the Middle East. I doubt 1 person in a thousand knew who OBL was.

Not really. They started it!

(*jumps up and down pointing finger*)


Seriously, before 9/11, Americans didn't give a shit one way or the other about the Middle East. I doubt 1 person in a thousand knew who OBL was.

and before WW2 i doubt too many people outside of Europe knew much about Hitler

Religion in and of it self is not evil it is when those of a particular faith choose to enforce their faith on others. Religion is too important of a crutch to be outlawed but you could realisticly outlaw all public displays of religion. This keeps the crutch in place and the zealots in check.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."- Friedrich Nietzsche

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." -Bertrand Russell

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." -Thomas Paine

"If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man's evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity" -Sigmund Freud

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -Mahatma Gandhi

"For seventeen hundred years the Christian sect has done nothing but harm" -Voltaire

"Religion has caused more harm than any other idea since the beginning of time. There's nothing good I can say about it. People use it as a crutch." -Larry Flynt

Drinking age. I'd lower it by six years.

-snip-

this proves its evil?

without religion is there such a thing as "evil"?

so how can someone denying religion call it "evil"?

More liberty, not less! Yay!

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."- Friedrich Nietzsche

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." -Bertrand Russell

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." -Thomas Paine

"If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man's evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity" -Sigmund Freud

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -Mahatma Gandhi

"For seventeen hundred years the Christian sect has done nothing but harm" -Voltaire

"Religion has caused more harm than any other idea since the beginning of time. There's nothing good I can say about it. People use it as a crutch." -Larry Flynt

Thanks for sharing those outdated arguments.

and before WW2 i doubt too many people outside of Europe knew much about Hitler

GODWIN!! GODWIN!! HaHa! Sorry, I couldn't help it. That is a logical fallacy anyways- false analogy.

Thanks for sharing those outdated arguments.

...This, coming from the same person who told us all to try our best to "fit in" with the norms of society.

Wow.

this proves its evil?

I think it does, particularly in the case of the Weinberg quote.

...This, coming from the same person who told us all to try our best to "fit in" with the norms of society.

Wow.

If your refering to the quote I made about school life, it wasn't a serious post as once you mature you realise that school life is not a "society".

Thanks for sharing those outdated arguments.

Not just outdated but false statements to boot.

Drinky-drinky for all people over fifteen! (I like my plan!)

I think it does, particularly in the case of the Weinberg quote.

Bush is the greatest President Ever

it has been said so it must be so

i have heard it before that evil is a religious concept. without relgion what is evil?

so can someone who doesnt follow any religion call something evil?

Bush is the greatest President Ever

it has been said so it must be so

i have heard it before that evil is a religious concept. without relgion what is evil?

so can someone who doesnt follow any religion call something evil?

...You're kidding, right?

I would allow the President of the Republic to confer titles of nobility (from duke to baron).

I would allow the President of the Republic to confer titles of nobility (from duke to baron).

Wouldn't that require a Constitutional Amendment?

Bush is the greatest President Ever

it has been said so it must be so

i have heard it before that evil is a religious concept. without relgion what is evil?

so can someone who doesnt follow any religion call something evil?

Let's get clear. Apart from the terrorism issue, it's clear that Bush will not be remembered as the "greatest President ever". Just compare his administration to Clinton's. Billy was a really good president.

Bush is the greatest President Ever

it has been said so it must be so

i have heard it before that evil is a religious concept. without relgion what is evil?

so can someone who doesnt follow any religion call something evil?

*sigh*
Your Bush analogy is a logical fallacy as well- same one- false analogy. And I am not committing a Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority) fallacy, because I am not saying that because Weinberg says something it must be so, just that the statement is a logically consistant truth.

And the concept of "good" and "evil" are outside of your exclusive Abrahamic claim of morality.

I am tired of this already.

"Screw you guys, I'm going home."- Eric Cartman

Wouldn't that require a Constitutional Amendment?

In the U.S. maybe, not in my country.

In the U.S. maybe, not in my country.

What country is that if I may ask?

*sigh*
Your Bush analogy is a logical fallacy as well- same one- false analogy. And I am not committing a Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority) fallacy, because I am not saying that because Weinberg says something it must be so, just that the statement is a logically consistant truth.

And the concept of "good" and "evil" are outside of your exclusive Abrahamic claim of morality.

I am tired of this already.

"Screw you guys, I'm going home."- Eric Cartman

i dont beleive i once mentioned my religion (or lack of) in this thread. you assume i must be a christian because i attacked your atheist arguement

you posted those quotes in response of someone saying religion was not evil. i took the assumption in taken that as your evidence that religion is evil. where those are just quotes about a subject and does not support any logical reasoning to prove that religion is indeed "evil"

What country is that if I may ask?

It's private.

It's private.

Its fine. I was just curious.

I would remove the immunity from prosecution that our politicians have.

It's private.

*Runs*

Its fine. I was just curious.

This is not the place to discuss private lives.

Which won't work, because, to cite an example, under the law of my country (Australia), to be officially recognised as a political party does take a lot of effort. You're required to show a level of background support amongst the community. I forget exactly, but I think it's at least 2000 signatures in a certain electorate. To run for federal parliament, it might be more, but I confess that I haven't actually read up on that for a couple of years.

If you lose that base, you're no longer a party. Good luck.

Not to mention that there would obviously be restrictions on what each party can spend it's funding on, much as current MPs face.


.

Does a party with 2000 signatures get as much funding as the largest party?

If not then how will the money be allocated?

Nobody can run for office until the have a pre vote with 2000 signatures (or whatever the number you cant be asked to find is)

Who cares what the restrictions are, if the 2000 signature guy gets as much as the largest party then the restrictions will certainly allow for travelling around campaigning in luxury. You can fool 2000 people into signing anything with a broad smile and a promise that they will benefit. Even communism or socialism.

This is not the place to discuss private lives.

I wasn't trying to peek into your private life. All I did was ask what nation you were from. That's all. No big deal. You said no so I'm not going to push it.

Not really. They started it!

(*jumps up and down pointing finger*)


Seriously, before 9/11, Americans didn't give a shit one way or the other about the Middle East. I doubt 1 person in a thousand knew who OBL was.

Yeah, I know they started the one in Afghanistan. I was talking about how we invaded another one of their countries. But anyway, that's just a tangent. My main point is that the terrorists don't hate us because we're Christians. I'll bet they would hate us more if we weren't "people of the book".
They hate us for a number of other reasons. The biggest one is that they need someone to hate, and we make an easy target. Other reasons include how unabashedly our media and population is Zionist-sympathetic. Also, because of the butt-sex and mullets... and you know what? the list just goes on and on. But I don't think it mentions Christianity.
Anyway, freedom of religion is a god-given right, which I guess is hard for someone who doesn't believe in god to comprehend... but what the Atheists don't realize is that historically the first-ammendment has been used to protect them from discrimination much more than it's used to protect Christian worship. Go Bill of Rights! (Which is another thing the terrorists hate, btw.)

Not really. They started it!

(*jumps up and down pointing finger*)


Seriously, before 9/11, Americans didn't give a shit one way or the other about the Middle East. I doubt 1 person in a thousand knew who OBL was.

Oh yeah, lets skip over those guys at the US Embassy in Iran who were held captive for over 444 days, or any of the bombings of US Embassy's or the first bombing of the World Trade Center by Al Queda.....MMMMHHH, I see your point, we didn't give a shit. Whatever. You know, for someone of your esteamed education, these are stupid comments.

Oh, and by the way, I could reply to you "quotes" by all your great thinkers. But the fact they are burning in hell right now, speaks volumns for itself.

I applaud you for sticking to your beliefs. I really do, but get one thing straight, this is a Christian Nation, the polls show the over 69% of the US claims belief in the "Christian faith", Catholic, Protastant, Mormon, main stream, etc. That would make a "majority" of the population. We are tired of a minority trying to "outlaw" what the majority believes. Our great nation was founded on these principles. If you don't like that, there are many nations who would welcome you. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan to name a few.

Let's get clear. Apart from the terrorism issue, it's clear that Bush will not be remembered as the "greatest President ever". Just compare his administration to Clinton's. Billy was a really good president.


Billy was Carters brother wasnt he? Anyway Clinton's largest blurb in history books will likely be the fact that he was the second president ever to be impeached. Hardly the measure of a really good president is it?

I would bring the Death penalty back to the U.K. This would be only used on extreem cases of murder, acts of terrorism and Treason (it is allready in place for treason but I would reinforce it).

Oh, and by the way, I could reply to you "quotes" by all your great thinkers. But the fact they are burning in hell right now, speaks volumns for itself.


Prove it.

I would ban private ownership of means of production.

Billy was Carters brother wasnt he? Anyway Clinton's largest blurb in history books will likely be the fact that he was the second president ever to be impeached. Hardly the measure of a really good president is it?

I'm not talking about the Lewinsky case, and you know that. I'm talking about facts, he was far better president than George Bush. I'm neither his fan nor his defender.

I would ban private ownership of means of production.

There goes the economy.

Prove it.

Besides for the way this reply comes across as very sophmoric, lets put it this way. I don't really need to.

If I am wrong about my faith in God, so what, people will call me a fool.
If the atheist is wrong about their lack of faith in God, well, lets just say they will have wished they were not wrong.

Its called faith. I can attest to the true things God has done in my life. Thats all the proof I need.

this is a Christian Nation ... Our great nation was founded on these principles.

If you are ready to get thuroughly schooled by the founding fathers on how this is a load of rubbish, just let me know and I will summon them.

If you are ready to get thuroughly schooled by the founding fathers on how this is a load of rubbish, just let me know and I will summon them.

Bring it on my friend. I will gladly quote all the documents by our founding fathers that expressly mention God as the guiding hand.

How does it not, now?

Aside from restrictions on hate speech (which I'll agree are dumb), what about free speech isn't free speech?

I'm looking mostly at the FCC, the RIAA, the MPAA, etc.

Besides for the way this reply comes across as very sophmoric, lets put it this way. I don't really need to.

If I am wrong about my faith in God, so what, people will call me a fool.
If the atheist is wrong about their lack of faith in God, well, lets just say they will have wished they were not wrong.

Its called faith. I can attest to the true things God has done in my life. Thats all the proof I need.

I'm not asking you to prove your faith in God. I'm asking you to prove that Gandhi et al are burning in hell.

Do you believe in the Bible? Doesn't it say "judge not lest ye be judged"? I thought only Christ could tell who was in hell, not some forum lurker. Anyway, it's just a pet peeve of mine when people claim they know who's in hell and who's not, when really they have no idea.

May the Schwartz be with you!

I'm not asking you to prove your faith in God. I'm asking you to prove that Gahndi et al are burning in hell.

Do you believe in the Bible? Doesn't it say "judge not lest ye be judged"? I thought only Christ could tell who was in hell, not some forum lurker. Anyway, it's just a pet peeve of mine when people claim they know who's in hell and who's not, when really they have no idea.

May the Schwartz be with you!

And, I do not believe in Hell.

Just...putting that out there.

This a a MASONIC NATION founded on MASONIC princeples. You would do well to know the beliefs of the founders ....most were Deists who only paid lip service to Christianity.


snip I applaud you for sticking to your beliefs. I really do, but get one thing straight, this is a Christian Nation, the polls show the over 69% of the US claims belief in the "Christian faith", Catholic, Protastant, Mormon, main stream, etc. That would make a "majority" of the population. We are tired of a minority trying to "outlaw" what the majority believes. Our great nation was founded on these principles. If you don't like that, there are many nations who would welcome you. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan to name a few.

Bring it on my friend. I will gladly quote all the documents by our founding fathers that expressly mention God as the guiding hand.

Hmmm, let me start with a link from a school of theology: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

Not only is there no evidence to support the conclusion that this country was founded as a Christian Nation, but one of our earliest treaties with Tripoli, which was formerly ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams on the 10th of June, 1797, states quite plainly that the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation. Being a treaty it carries the full weight of law. "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 tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."

This a a MASONIC NATION founded on MASONIC princeples. You would do well to know the beliefs of the founders ....most were Deists who only paid lip service to Christianity.

Odd...I thought this was a nation of equality, with liberty and justice for all...

I'm not asking you to prove your faith in God. I'm asking you to prove that Gahndi et al are burning in hell.

Do you believe in the Bible? Doesn't it say "judge not lest ye be judged"? I thought only Christ could tell who was in hell, not some forum lurker. Anyway, it's just a pet peeve of mine when people claim they know who's in hell and who's not, when really they have no idea.

May the Schwartz be with you!

Forum lurker? I am just getting started in NationStates, so what?

Well, since your a scholar of the Bible, The Bible also says, " what is not for God, is against God." Therefore, the thinkers who were agnostic or atheistic are not for God and would be judged by God accordingly.

So sorry, don't waste your pet peeve on me. There were also other arguments in my post, so edit it anyway you want as you did.

and as a priest would say "and also with you."

Well, since your a scholar of the Bible, The Bible also says, " what is not for God, is against God." Therefore, the thinkers who were agnostic or atheistic are not for God and would be judged by God accordingly.

Though I am a Catholic I have never had a good "relationship" with the Bible, there are so many contradictions. Do you not see them as well?

Hmmm, let me start with a link from a school of theology: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

Not only is there no evidence to support the conclusion that this country was founded as a Christian Nation, but one of our earliest treaties with Tripoli, which was formerly ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams on the 10th of June, 1797, states quite plainly that the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation. Being a treaty it carries the full weight of law. "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 tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."

IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89
Library of Congress Official Statement
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html


The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

Hmmm, let me start with a link from a school of theology: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

Not only is there no evidence to support the conclusion that this country was founded as a Christian Nation, but one of our earliest treaties with Tripoli, which was formerly ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams on the 10th of June, 1797, states quite plainly that the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation. Being a treaty it carries the full weight of law. "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 tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."

And for your files, this is the from the House of Representative on Oct 8, 2002, HR bill S. 2690

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2690

AMENDMENT S 2690 EAH

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 8, 2002.

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2690) entitled `An Act to reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance', do pass with the following AMENDMENT:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: `Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,'.

(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.

(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'.

(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.

(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: `It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'.

(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'.

(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law a statute that was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to read: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.';

(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national motto of the United States is `In God We Trust', and that motto is inscribed above the main door of the Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States.

(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), in which compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: `But untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.'.

(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), in which a city government's display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, stated: `There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789 . . . [E]xamples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto `In God We Trust' (36 U.S.C. 186), which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see (31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) (1982 ed.)), and in the language `One Nation under God', as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children--and adults--every year . . . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent--not seasonal--symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.'.

(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court's holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words `under God,' stated `In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.'.

(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words `under God' was constitutional.

(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, (9th Cir. June 26, 2002) that the Pledge of Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.

SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

`The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Pledge for decades.

SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 302 of title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 302. National motto

`In God we trust' is the national motto.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall make no change in section 302, title 36, United States Code, but shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Motto for decades. Attest:

Clerk.

Though I am a Catholic I have never had a good "relationship" with the Bible, there are so many contradictions. Do you not see them as well?

Sorry, not contradictions, interrpetations. It is how man has interrpeted the Bible. I have yet to see a contradiction.

Sorry, not contradictions, interrpetations. It is how man has interrpeted the Bible. I have yet to see a contradiction.

So you would interpret "Not for God as against Him", as a literal meaning in unto itself.

Well...I suppose with such a complex work that is the Bible, one can only pick and choose what to believe. But know that I disagree with your interpretations.

(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.

(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'.

(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.


Just as someone else said: many of the founding fathers were Deist.

Not really a law... but I would make California a country.

So you would interpret "Not for God as against Him", as a literal meaning in unto itself.

Well...I suppose with such a complex work that is the Bible, one can only pick and choose what to believe. But know that I disagree with your interpretations.

What a great country with religious freedom that we live in that you can disagree. That is perfectly fine to disagree. If not for, how can it not be against? Thank you for disagreeing, not attacking like some.

Just as someone else said: many of the founding fathers were Deist.

Once again you edited the content to fit your needs. The point of the post was that not only did the original founding fathers believe this, but it was reaffirmed in the House on Oct. 8, 2002.

We were founded on these beliefs and we reaffirm them to this day. The fact is, this is still a Christian Nation. Deal with it.

Forum lurker? I am just getting started in NationStates, so what?

Well, since your a scholar of the Bible, The Bible also says, " what is not for God, is against God." Therefore, the thinkers who were agnostic or atheistic are not for God and would be judged by God accordingly.

So sorry, don't waste your pet peeve on me. There were also other arguments in my post, so edit it anyway you want as you did.

and as a priest would say "and also with you."

Welcome to NationStates! Sorry to insult you by calling you a lurker. It wasn't a very Christian thing to do to a n00b.

Yes, I was responding to one part of your post, and not the whole post. So what?

Yes, it would be reasonable to assume that atheist and agnostic thinkers are in hell. But if you think you know the mind of God, I think you are mistaken. But I guess we can agree to disagree. You think these people are in hell, whereas I reserve judgment for the great judge.

But some of the thinkers on that list were not agnostic nor atheistic. Gandhi, for example, definitely believed in God. He was a Christian (as well as a number of other things).

And I agree with you. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. We (the readers) just don't understand it perfectly.

Once again you edited the content to fit your needs. The point of the post was that not only did the original founding fathers believe this, but it was reaffirmed in the House on Oct. 8, 2002.

We were founded on these beliefs and we reaffirm them to this day. The fact is, this is still a Christian Nation. Deal with it.

Yes, I included only the parts that deal with the Founding Fathers, because that's what I was talking about: the Founding Fathers! Why would I quote the entirety of such a long post when I was only talking about the part that dealt with the Founding Fathers?

Those are fundamental Masonic princples.

Odd...I thought this was a nation of equality, with liberty and justice for all...

I'm also sure you know Jefferson rewrote the Bible to exclude Jesus's "divinity" and Franklin was in the Hellfire club.

And for your files, this is the from the House of Representative on Oct 8, 2002, HR bill S. 2690

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2690

AMENDMENT S 2690 EAH

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 8, 2002.

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2690) entitled `An Act to reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance', do pass with the following AMENDMENT:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: `Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,'.

(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.

(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'.

(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.

(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: `It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'.

(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'.

(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law a statute that was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to read: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.';

(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national motto of the United States is `In God We Trust', and that motto is inscribed above the main door of the Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States.

(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), in which compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: `But untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.'.

(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), in which a city government's display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, stated: `There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789 . . . [E]xamples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto `In God We Trust' (36 U.S.C. 186), which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see (31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) (1982 ed.)), and in the language `One Nation under God', as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children--and adults--every year . . . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent--not seasonal--symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.'.

(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court's holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words `under God,' stated `In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.'.

(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words `under God' was constitutional.

(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, (9th Cir. June 26, 2002) that the Pledge of Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.

SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

`The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Pledge for decades.

SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 302 of title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 302. National motto

`In God we trust' is the national motto.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall make no change in section 302, title 36, United States Code, but shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Motto for decades. Attest:

Clerk.

Legalize gay marriage. :fluffle:

Yes, I included only the parts that deal with the Founding Fathers, because that's what I was talking about: the Founding Fathers! Why would I quote the entirety of such a long post when I was only talking about the part that dealt with the Founding Fathers?

Thank you for agreeing to disagree. I have no problem with that.

My point of the long post was to show that even todays Congress reaffirms the founding fathers beliefs. This is not just an issue from 200 years ago, but one agreed on by todays leaders and once again, at least 69% of the nation. The majority of Americans.

Don't even get me started.... I could go on for DAYS on this but it is poor form to threadjack.


snip The Bible doesn't contradict itself. We (the readers) just don't understand it perfectly.

Besides for the way this reply comes across as very sophmoric, lets put it this way. I don't really need to.

If I am wrong about my faith in God, so what, people will call me a fool.
If the atheist is wrong about their lack of faith in God, well, lets just say they will have wished they were not wrong.

Its called faith. I can attest to the true things God has done in my life. Thats all the proof I need.

We've already discussed Pascal's Wager, here, and we've thoroughly torn it to shreds.

You've presented a false dilemma, choosing between only two possible states of the universe when there are far more than two such states. How can you be sure that your being wrong won't result in the same consequence you've described for the incorrect athiest? You could both be wrong, you know.

Don't even get me started.... I could go on for DAYS on this but it is poor form to threadjack.

Once again, your entitled to your opinion. Its not what this thread is about.

And I agree with you. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. We (the readers) just don't understand it perfectly.

If the Bible is so poorly written or transcribed or translated that we don't understand it, how can you derive any meaning from it at all?

We've already discussed Pascal's Wager, here, and we've thoroughly torn it to shreds.

You've presented a false dilemma, choosing between only two possible states of the universe when there are far more than two such states. How can you be sure that your being wrong won't result in the same consequence you've described for the incorrect athiest? You could both be wrong, you know.

How can I be sure? Because my Heavenly Father assures me everyday. I have faith. So no, I am not wrong. I won't go into that anyfurther, at risk of insulting others, all I can say is that God has proven to me over and over again his divinity and thats all I need.

Thanks for playing.

The government cannot levy taxes of any kind.

The government cannot levy taxes of any kind.

And how will we fund the government?

And how will we fund the government?

Maybe he wants an anarchy?

Make pot legal (and have the govt regulate sale, etc.)... may gay/lesbo mariage legal... ban corporations from funding politicians... raise the national speed limit 20%... So hard to pick!

Make pot legal (and have the govt regulate sale, etc.)... may gay/lesbo mariage legal... ban corporations from funding politicians... raise the national speed limit 20%... So hard to pick!

Actually...speed limits are done at the state level.

If the Bible is so poorly written or transcribed or translated that we don't understand it, how can you derive any meaning from it at all?

I never said it was poorly written. I believe it is very beautifully written. I believe that the holy spirit speaks to us as far as interpretation. It means many things to many people. It is also a written history and one that has been proven by ancient ruins, etc.

I would rewrite the 2nd amendment so that it's easier to understand. It would read, "Although a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear the same small arms as the military shall not be infringed.

How can I be sure? Because my Heavenly Father assures me everyday. I have faith. So no, I am not wrong. I won't go into that anyfurther, at risk of insulting others, all I can say is that God has proven to me over and over again his divinity and thats all I need.

Thanks for playing.

But you presented a conditional that began "If I am wrong". Why present the conditional if you know the antecedent is false?

But you presented a conditional that began "If I am wrong". Why present the conditional if you know the antecedent is false?

Why indeed. Its just a rhetorical question. One that makes us think.

And for your files, this is the from the House of Representative on Oct 8, 2002, HR bill S. 2690

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2690

AMENDMENT S 2690 EAH

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 8, 2002.

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2690) entitled `An Act to reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance', do pass with the following AMENDMENT:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: `Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,'.

(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.

(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'.

(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.

(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: `It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'.

(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'.

(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law a statute that was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to read: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.';

(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national motto of the United States is `In God We Trust', and that motto is inscribed above the main door of the Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States.

(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), in which compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: `But untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.'.

(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), in which a city government's display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, stated: `There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789 . . . [E]xamples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto `In God We Trust' (36 U.S.C. 186), which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see (31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) (1982 ed.)), and in the language `One Nation under God', as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children--and adults--every year . . . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent--not seasonal--symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.'.

(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court's holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words `under God,' stated `In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.'.

(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words `under God' was constitutional.

(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, (9th Cir. June 26, 2002) that the Pledge of Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.

SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

`The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Pledge for decades.

SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 302 of title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 302. National motto

`In God we trust' is the national motto.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall make no change in section 302, title 36, United States Code, but shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Motto for decades. Attest:

Clerk.

Adding "under God" to the pledge in the 50's in a response to communism does in no way make this a Christian nation nor does it say anythign about the laws of the nation.

http://home.fuse.net/keykrazy/views.htm

Thomas Jefferson

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


"The Clergy [had] a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity throughtout the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
letter to Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800


"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies."
letter to Dr. Woods


"We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication."
Cardiff


"The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."


"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Notes on the State of Virginia, 1787


"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever..."
Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, 1786


"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."
letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814




James Madison

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
1803 letter objecting to church use of government land


"What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instances have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people."
"A Memorial and Remonstrance"
(to the VA General Assembly)


"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
Ibid.


"Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance. ... I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. ... Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government."
letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822


"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774


"Religion is the foundation of government."
JUST JOKING! Madison would never had said anything like this; it is a fabrication created by David Barton of WallBuilders.


"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments."
Another Lie! No historian can find these words in any of Madison's writings. This hoax dates back to the 1950's -- right around the time Senator McCarthey was getting "In God We Trust" un-constitutionally stamped on our currency.



George Washington

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
letter to Sir Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792


"George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative."
"George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol", Barry Schwartz


"There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence."
"George Washington: A Profile", Paul F. Boller, Jr.




John Adams

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
Treaty with Tripoli, passed unanimously by the senate,
signed by President Adams on June 10, 1797


"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature... [In] the formation of the American governments...it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven... These governements were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
"A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America", 1788


"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."
letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816


"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamites that engine of grief has produced!"
letter to Thomas Jefferson (Seldes)




Benjamin Franklin

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
Cardiff


"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758


"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780




Thomas Paine

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law."


"Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."


"Some Christians pretend that Christianity was not established by the sword; but of what period of time do they speak? It was impossible that twelve men could begin with the sword; they had not the power; but no sooner were the professors of Christianity sufficiently powerful to employ the sword, than they did so, and the stake and fagot, too . . . Those who preach this doctrine of loving their enemies are in general the greatest persecutors..."


"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize [hu]mankind."
"The Age of Reason"


"All national institutions of churches, wether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."




Abraham Lincoln

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
speech in New York, 1924


"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, 1862




Others

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [George Washington, John Adams; Thomas Jefferson; James Madison; James Monroe; John Qunicy Adams; Andrew Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity."
Bird Wilson, October, 1831


"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."
Albert Gallatin (1761-1849), Statesman


"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated."
Ulysses S. Grant


"Novus Ordo Seclorum"
("New Secular Order")
inscription on the reverse of a $1 bill
("In God We Trust" appeared in 1956 as
paranoid Joe McCarthy's vain attempt to
keep us free from "godless communism")


and for some absolute stupidity:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
George W. Bush, Sr.
said to reporter Ron Barrier of American Atheist Press, August 27th, 1987


So, just because there are many Christians here, and many trying to claim this nation for Christianity, our founding fathers make it clear that this is not a Christian nation.

Why indeed. Its just a rhetorical question. One that makes us think.

A rhetorical question is just one to which you don't have an answer.

I had an answer. You didn't want to hear it.

Adding "under God" to the pledge in the 50's in a response to communism does in no way make this a Christian nation nor does it say anythign about the laws of the nation.

http://home.fuse.net/keykrazy/views.htm



So, just because there are many Christians here, and many trying to claim this nation for Christianity, our founding fathers make it clear that this is not a Christian nation.

To quote a famouse American, "bullpucky". I could present a thousand more quotes (anyone who Googles can), but the point was proven to the contrary already and 69% of Americans agree by their own classifications as Christians,that my friend is a majority.

Again proven by the Senate, the courts etc. You can try to refute it, but it is a hollo agrument.

next customer please.

I would amend the Supreme Court decision that classified corporations as people to say that they are not, and never can be classified as people.

A rhetorical question is just one to which you don't have an answer.

I had an answer. You didn't want to hear it.

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I have listened to all and replied to all. You asked a nonsinsicle question, to which I gave a valid reply.

I tire of those who start arguments as opposed to discussion.

To quote a famouse American, "bullpucky". I could present a thousand more quotes (anyone who Googles can), but the point was proven to the contrary already and 69% of Americans agree by their own classifications as Christians,that my friend is a majority.

Again proven by the Senate, the courts etc. You can try to refute it, but it is a hollo agrument.

next customer please.


To quote myself, "I guess your blinders are welded on so that you shall never see the light."

It seems you are a hopeless cause but I will leave you with this:

It doesnt matter how many people are of what religion, that doesnt mean the nation belongs to the religion. It belongs to all the citizens of that nation regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

It wasn't founded as a Christian nation and nowhere in the Constitution does it suggest that Christianity has anything to do with commonlaw (any mention of God or Creator does not entail that religion must be involved. I believe in God *because of experience with spirit* but I have no religion.). Yes, with a simple web search we find that the founding fathers have a lot to say regarding their support of separation of church and state. You may have heard that it is illegal for the US to have an official religion; why do you think that is?

this again?

hmmm... my choice still hasn't changed.

make virus creation and hacking terroristic actions and the perpetrators classified as enemy combatants.

In this day and age, viruses and hackers can do as much, if not more, damage as a 747 slaminging into a building.

this again?

hmmm... my choice still hasn't changed.

make virus creation and hacking terroristic actions and the perpetrators classified as enemy combatants.

In this day and age, viruses and hackers can do as much, if not more, damage as a 747 slaminging into a building.

Another law I can agree with :)

Do away with welfare and/or social security.

To quote myself, "I guess your blinders are welded on so that you shall never see the light."

It seems you are a hopeless cause but I will leave you with this:

It doesnt matter how many people are of what religion, that doesnt mean the nation belongs to the religion. It belongs to all the citizens of that nation regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

It wasn't founded as a Christian nation and nowhere in the Constitution does it suggest that Christianity has anything to do with commonlaw (any mention of God or Creator does not entail that religion must be involved. I believe in God *because of experience with spirit* but I have no religion.). Yes, with a simple web search we find that the founding fathers have a lot to say regarding their support of separation of church and state. You may have heard that it is illegal for the US to have an official religion; why do you think that is?

Ok, I have to answer this. Enough about the Constitution. It has nothing to do with religion. Everybody keeps saying the Constitution did not set up an official religion. READ the original constitution! There is nothing about seperation of church and state, etc. The original Constitution simply lays the ground work for how our Leadership and States Rights were to be defined. Not only that, the ONLY thing in the Constitution by our founding fathers is in the end when it states "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven".

I already enclosed the comments of the founding fathers such as George Washington, etc proving that they honored God and the principles of his rightousness.

We don't need an official religion to have recognized that Christianity is the religion of choice by the majority of Americans. We are "One Nation under God" even if a small percentage of Americans do not agree.

If being a hopeless cause means I stand for what I believe, then yes, Thank God I am.

this again?

hmmm... my choice still hasn't changed.

make virus creation and hacking terroristic actions and the perpetrators classified as enemy combatants.

In this day and age, viruses and hackers can do as much, if not more, damage as a 747 slaminging into a building.

sounds alright, but there should possiibly be levels of it. a kid trying to get into someone elses email account is different then someone trying to access super secure pentagon sites

Ok, I have to answer this. Enough about the Constitution. It has nothing to do with religion. Everybody keeps saying the Constitution did not set up an official religion. READ the original constitution! There is nothing about seperation of church and state, etc. The original Constitution simply lays the ground work for how our Leadership and States Rights were to be defined. Not only that, the ONLY thing in the Constitution by our founding fathers is in the end when it states "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven".

I already enclosed the comments of the founding fathers such as George Washington, etc proving that they honored God and the principles of his rightousness.

We don't need an official religion to have recognized that Christianity is the religion of choice by the majority of Americans. We are "One Nation under God" even if a small percentage of Americans do not agree.

If being a hopeless cause means I stand for what I believe, then yes, Thank God I am.

Yes, and out of religious conviction, they set up a seperation of church and state. If I may be so bold as to draw from the writings of another. . .


It is not my business to inquire here into the original of the power or dignity of the clergy. This only I say, that whencesoever their authority has sprung, since it is ecclesiastical, it ought to be confined within the bounds of the church, nor can it in any manner be extended to civil affairs; because the church itself is a thing absolutely seperate and dsitinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on both sides are fixed and immoveable. He jumbles heaven and earth together, the things most remoted and opposite, who mixes these societies, which are, in their original, end, business, and in every thing, perfectly distinct, and infinitely different from each other.

Unless you are going to argue that Locke is some kind of secular humanist or had nothing to do with the Constitution, I believe you've been checked and mated 300 years before you were born.

Originally Posted by MrMopar
Make pot legal (and have the govt regulate sale, etc.)... may gay/lesbo mariage legal... ban corporations from funding politicians... raise the national speed limit 20%... So hard to pick!

Actually...speed limits are done at the state level.

So are possession laws, marriage laws, and the other could only apply to federal politicians.

Yes, and out of religious conviction, they set up a seperation of church and state. If I may be so bold as to draw from the writings of another. . .



Unless you are going to argue that Locke is some kind of secular humanist or had nothing to do with the Constitution, I believe you've been checked and mated 300 years before you were born.

Since you want to come in so late on the argument, you don't even seem to know what this was about. It was not about seperation of state and church, but what was the spiritual intentions of the founding fathers. The quote by Locke is not arguing against God or his divinity, but of providing a buffer between gov't and religion. It seems that all this is not pertinant to the original discussion, so please read all 10 pages of posts before your sarcastic replies.

Thank you.

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I have listened to all and replied to all. You asked a nonsinsicle question, to which I gave a valid reply.

I tire of those who start arguments as opposed to discussion.

An argument is a discussion. I just involves more of me telling you that you're wrong rather than asserting that I am right.

But my position is one of uncertainty, so I don't have anything to assert. You're never going to find my position more compelling than yours, because my position isn't compelling. But it is more logically sound, and the way I demonstrate that is by attacking your position.

If you only allow positive discussions, then naturally you'll reach a positive conclusion. Way to invent your own pro-Jesus newspeak.

An argument is a discussion. I just involves more of me telling you that you're wrong rather than asserting that I am right.

But my position is one of uncertainty, so I don't have anything to assert. You're never going to find my position more compelling than yours, because my position isn't compelling. But it is more logically sound, and the way I demonstrate that is by attacking your position.

If you only allow positive discussions, then naturally you'll reach a positive conclusion. Way to invent your own pro-Jesus newspeak.

Your right about one thing, yours is one of uncertainty. And that should in and of itself be a scary thought for you. I never said that it had to be positive, just not personally attacking. Obviously you have never had a debate class where you learn to discuss the issues and not insult the presenter.

I differ with you about logic, there is nothing more logical than God the Father. If you want to call it pro-Jesus, great. I am certainly pro-Jesus.

Got to go. I'll keep praying for you. In Jesus name.
Good Night.

Welfare is gone, kaput, no more! I would free my people from such a tax burden.

Only one, eh?

Ban private donations to political parties, and allocate each party an equal share of public money for their campaign.

Would solve a lot of problems, IMO, and help to bring some semblance of democracy back to the people.
I agree.

Establish a minimum dollar amount on which a person/family can survive and the government would ensure that each person/family received that amount. This would include the cost of housing, food, clothing, etc. This would mainly be funded by taxes on luxury items.

I would pass something like the Equal Rights Amendment... or, in what would amount to its functional equivalent, I would compel the Supreme Court to rule (in a unanimous opinion, just for impact) that sex and gender are "suspect classifications" in the meaning of the equal protection doctrine.

Change not just the law, but the Constitution so that Supreme Court justices are elected not appointed. Then subject them review based not on their political/social biases, but on their knowledge of the law and the American judicial system.

sounds alright, but there should possiibly be levels of it. a kid trying to get into someone elses email account is different then someone trying to access super secure pentagon sitesoh there will be differences with the form the punnishment takes. of course children (if found guilty) will have different punnishments than adults.

but a child breaking (or attempting to break into) the pentagon files will be treated worse than a child breaking into someone's mytree account.

Getting back on topic(and we all should, or start a new thread!)...

I'm 33. I used to be a bouncer. I'm at least informed, if not truly wise.

The law I'd change would be to drop the drinking age to 16(its 18 here). WHAT? thats a little contrary to what adults think, but here goes...

The other thing that would be needed would be to increase the driving age to 18(its 16 here).

The effect that would have would be to introduce young people to drinking at an age where they couldnt cause car accidents. I saw way to much drinking and driving, and most of it was by young naive people that were new to drinking, but preceived themselves as experienced drivers. With two years of driving, you SHOULD be, but confidence and alcohol do not mix.

So, let them learn to drink before they are allowed to drive. You might not permit them into clubs, where drinking limits are hard to supervise, but let the young people have a beer or wine with their supper(in public). Education comes with exposure and experience.

What about Jefferson's Bible and Franklin's Hellfire membership ??? You didn't respond to that??

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I have listened to all and replied to all. You asked a nonsinsicle question, to which I gave a valid reply.

I tire of those who start arguments as opposed to discussion.

You speak like a petulant child He(?) has directly responded to you notions of a Christian America don't be rude if you were bested and do no like the answer
Since you want to come in so late on the argument, you don't even seem to know what this was about. It was not about seperation of state and church, but what was the spiritual intentions of the founding fathers. The quote by Locke is not arguing against God or his divinity, but of providing a buffer between gov't and religion. It seems that all this is not pertinant to the original discussion, so please read all 10 pages of posts before your sarcastic replies.

Thank you.

Your right about one thing, yours is one of uncertainty. And that should in and of itself be a scary thought for you. I never said that it had to be positive, just not personally attacking. Obviously you have never had a debate class where you learn to discuss the issues and not insult the presenter.

I differ with you about logic, there is nothing more logical than God the Father. If you want to call it pro-Jesus, great. I am certainly pro-Jesus.

Got to go. I'll keep praying for you. In Jesus name.
Good Night.

I didn't insult you. I attacked your reasoning. Different thing.

Uncertainty isn't a bad thing. I think it's important that we be aware of those topics on which we don't possess knowledge. There do exist topics on which we don't possess knowledge. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

God may well be logical, but your belief in him isn't. If it were, you could convince anyone who'd had relevantly similar experiences. But prosletyzing isn't that successful.

Establish a minimum dollar amount on which a person/family can survive and the government would ensure that each person/family received that amount. This would include the cost of housing, food, clothing, etc. This would mainly be funded by taxes on luxury items.
No good. It costs more to live in the north than the south. If you played it so people recieved money at a rate that reflected regional costs, or even dietary and/or clothing needs or transportation costs, you'd end up with "some are more equal than others". And thats no different than today.

Only one? Great, I have to choose between abolishing the handgun registry, owner liscencing and ban on most rifles and full-capacity magazines, and a concealed carry law.

I guess I'd go with a universal carry law.

I live in Canada, by the way.

I would make a law outlawing BC Premeirs.

I would make a law outlawing BC Premeirs.

Isnt it remarkable how every BC Premier has been involved in shady deals/corruption?

I would probably alter the no-fly list. Specifically, I would make it so that no individual under 18 can be stopped from flying simply because his name is on the no-fly list.

Reason: my name is on the no-fly list. To get off, I need three forms of ID. I only have two - my passport and driver's license. Once I turn 18, I can get a voter registration card.
Besides, how can teenagers be serious terrorist threats - or, more importantly, how can they get off the list?

I would abolish all immigration controls that stop the free movement of the people of our earth from settling in any part of the world they choose to :upyours:

I would probably alter the no-fly list. Specifically, I would make it so that no individual under 18 can be stopped from flying simply because his name is on the no-fly list.

Reason: my name is on the no-fly list. To get off, I need three forms of ID. I only have two - my passport and driver's license. Once I turn 18, I can get a voter registration card.
Besides, how can teenagers be serious terrorist threats - or, more importantly, how can they get off the list?

What about a birth certificate and/or social security card?