NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is this such a great complaint? Why do persons complain that liberals want to take God out of the government? Do we not want a separation of church and state?

Yes we do. Although not all of us are Godless.

We wantz christian theocracy yarr! DEATH TO THE GODLESS MUSLIM LIBERALS!

We wantz christian theocracy yarr! DEATH TO THE GODLESS MUSLIM LIBERALS!

*shrug* off to Vatican City with you then.

We wantz christian theocracy yarr! DEATH TO THE GODLESS MUSLIM LIBERALS!

So... Incoherent Christian pirate? :D

(I AM assuming you're joking and replying in kind. If you aren't, then assume I'm not either.)

*shrug* off to Vatican City with you then.

But if all the hyperconservative Christian theocrats went away, who would the Republicans pander to?

(The other post by me was sarcasm)

But if all the hyperconservative Christian theocrats went away, who would the Republicans pander to?

(The other post by me was sarcasm)

No really!:D

Well, the educated among us want a separation of church and state. However, the educated are not in the majority in the US; most people here want to force their religion upon others.

The notion of Church and State separation is really quite silly. To have total Church and State Separation you would need total secularism thus you would need to get rid of anyone with any personal Religious which is roughly 76% of the American Population.

In all seriousness who really cares if Under God is in the Pledge, if it's on our money, and so on. If the "godless liberals" really have to take the time to get offended over that, then you have to sort your priorities.

The notion of Church and State separation is really quite silly. To have total Church and State Separation you would need total secularism thus you would need to get rid of anyone with any personal Religious which is roughly 76% of the American Population.

In all seriousness who really cares if Under God is in the Pledge, if it's on our money, and so on. If the "godless liberals" really have to take the time to get offended over that, then you have to sort your priorities.



Naaa I think you misunderstand what 'seperation of church and state' means.

Religion should have no say in goverment, and I speak as a religous man.

To have total Church and State Separation you would need total secularism thus you would need to get rid of anyone with any personal Religious which is roughly 76% of the American Population.


This sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The notion of Church and State separation is really quite silly. To have total Church and State Separation you would need total secularism thus you would need to get rid of anyone with any personal Religious which is roughly 76% of the American Population. Gee, that's actually not what separation of Church and State is about at all. It's about avoiding one religion becoming the deciding factor of who gets to run for office and a church as an institution becoming melded with state institutions.

Oh, that's easy -- the republicans are mad that they haven't lost enough seats to give democrats a 2/3 majority!

Why do persons complain that liberals want to take God out of the government?If nobody voted for him, he shouldn't be in the government in the first place. It's a democracy, damnit.

Although I'm not entirely opposed to fictional/noncorporeal/nonhuman entities running (or being run) for seats in government. And it'd send a message to foreign nations you're batshit insane, so they wouldn't dare mess with you. Score!

I prefer the term "Godfree". Godless suggests I am somehow "missing out" in being able to make my own decisions on issues based on independent thinking rather than just blindly accepting the dictates in a piece of text written a couple of thousand years ago by individuals I have absolutely no reason to trust. There is no spiritual hole in my life waiting to be filled by Jesus's mighty sceptre.

The Separation of Church and State was instituted to protect the Church from the state. Read the letters of Thomas Jefferson. Any sane person realizes that the Church is always going to influence the State because they can influence the Citizen, who in a Democratic Republic such as ours controls the State.

The whole point of the Separation of Church and State was to protect the rights of the People to practice whatever religion their conscious compelled them to worship. Remember, the two clauses in the section state that there shall be no law establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free practice there-of.

And quite frankly, I think that not allowing Church Officials to suggest that certain politicians are not in line with Church Teaching is wrong, and that the IRS should just rule that ALL churches are tax free, so long as they do not become Hate Churches (I am looking at you Westboro Baptist and Trinity United)

for some people the thought has never occurred to them that there can be "godless" anything. for some it has never occurred to them that there are non-christians--except for those who dont consider catholics and mormons christians, of course.

so it seems to them that removing "god" from things is a big change and even some kind of attack on their basic beliefs.

There is no spiritual hole in my life waiting to be filled by Jesus's mighty sceptre.

Or Muhamed, or Guru Nanak, or Krishna etc...?

Jefferson's letters were actually his buying his way out of a problem with his constituency regarding his not adhering to their religious beliefs as a representative of their region.
Officially, the US government begins with the statement "All Men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, Chief among these being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".
This sort of flies in the face of Separation of Church and State, but rather like "No Taxation Without Representation", I suspect it was mere campaign rhetoric...

And quite frankly, I think that not allowing Church Officials to suggest that certain politicians are not in line with Church Teaching is wrong, and that the IRS should just rule that ALL churches are tax free, so long as they do not become Hate Churches (I am looking at you Westboro Baptist and Trinity United)

More usefullly you could just tax them all and let them write off their charitable contributions just like everyone else does.

The Separation of Church and State was instituted to protect the Church from the state. Read the letters of Thomas Jefferson. Any sane person realizes that the Church is always going to influence the State because they can influence the Citizen, who in a Democratic Republic such as ours controls the State.

The whole point of the Separation of Church and State was to protect the rights of the People to practice whatever religion their conscious compelled them to worship. Remember, the two clauses in the section state that there shall be no law establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free practice there-of.

And quite frankly, I think that not allowing Church Officials to suggest that certain politicians are not in line with Church Teaching is wrong, and that the IRS should just rule that ALL churches are tax free, so long as they do not become Hate Churches (I am looking at you Westboro Baptist and Trinity United)

Surely it was to protect freedom of religion not to protect 'the Church' which implies a particular religion.

Or Muhamed, or Guru Nanak, or Krishna etc...?

Nope, none of them. But I have less knowledge of the texts of other religions, so I can't think of any innueno-laden terms like "mighty sceptre" that appear in the text for me to make fun of. So to my mind they don't deserve a mention, and quite frankly might as well not exist:p

Surely it was to protect freedom of religion not to protect 'the Church' which implies a particular religion.

At the time it was passed, the US was a region of religious heretics with powerful Catholic colonies to the North, South, and West-if God truly influences all leaders, then religious expediency must be taken into account.

At the time it was passed, the US was a region of religious heretics with powerful Catholic colonies to the North, South, and West-if God truly influences all leaders, then religious expediency must be taken into account.

But as the first country to not discriminate against Jews, it was not purely about Christianity, so the use of the word 'church' is somewhat misleading.

The Separation of Church and State was instituted to protect the Church from the state. Read the letters of Thomas Jefferson. Any sane person realizes that the Church is always going to influence the State because they can influence the Citizen, who in a Democratic Republic such as ours controls the State.

The whole point of the Separation of Church and State was to protect the rights of the People to practice whatever religion their conscious compelled them to worship. Remember, the two clauses in the section state that there shall be no law establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free practice there-of.

And quite frankly, I think that not allowing Church Officials to suggest that certain politicians are not in line with Church Teaching is wrong, and that the IRS should just rule that ALL churches are tax free, so long as they do not become Hate Churches (I am looking at you Westboro Baptist and Trinity United)
It's also about to protect the state from any church as institution. You can separate the two as institutions. You can not separate politics and religion, because you cannot tell where political ideology ends and religion starts (and the other way around).

It's also about to protect the state from any church as institution. You can separate the two as institutions. You can not separate politics and religion, because you cannot tell where political ideology ends and religion starts (and the other way around).

Naaa I disagree.

I know exactly where my political idealogy and my religous dogmatic ideals start and end.

My politics give me my outlook on life, my religoin is all to do with my relationship with God.

But as the first country to not discriminate against Jews, it was not purely about Christianity, so the use of the word 'church' is somewhat misleading.

Not really-to the minds of the Founders, Christianity was the only "true" religion-this belief did not spare the Native American religious system, nor was it used in respect to any religion beyond Christianity until much later. It merely protected the heretics of the States from Catholic oppression initially.

*looks around at the tyranny of the CoE*

well its not so bad I guess :confused:

*looks around at the tyranny of the CoE*

well its not so bad I guess :confused:

Heh.

I pronounce the Church and the state; man and man!!

Seriously a secular state performs its duties better than that of a theocratic one. Of course if we want the US to end up as another IRAN, then why not. But I fear for the rest of the world if this happens. Also politcal ideology can by seperated from religious theology, simply by explaining things in a way that is logial and not as absurd. A true democracy can only function without the use of "divine rights" in determining their leaders.

Churches and other religious organisation has a structure that often mirrors those of firms, except that in this case, the pay is measured spirtually. Since it operates around the same principles why not tax the church? If you want fairness and equity then TAX all religion (who might be holding god knows how much surplus funds) and use the funds to fund much more substantial things like healthcare and education. Finally since they are paying their employees spiritually, then they dont really need all those spare cash anyway. (And no dont get started on taxing those rich people, they earned their cash and they do pay their taxes already)

Not really-to the minds of the Founders, Christianity was the only "true" religion-this belief did not spare the Native American religious system, nor was it used in respect to any religion beyond Christianity until much later. It merely protected the heretics of the States from Catholic oppression initially.

Right. The founding fathers were all Christians. Contrary to his beliefs, for example, Thomas Jefferson was not a Deist, but a Christian.

That's also why the Treaty of Tripoli says "Since the government of the United States is in every way founded upon the Christian Religion."

Game over atheists. You are stupid, horrible people.

I pronounce the Church and the state; man and man!!

Seriously a secular state performs its duties better than that of a theocratic one. Of course if we want the US to end up as another IRAN, then why not. But I fear for the rest of the world if this happens. Also politcal ideology can by seperated from religious theology, simply by explaining things in a way that is logial and not as absurd. A true democracy can only function without the use of "divine rights" in determining their leaders.

Churches and other religious organisation has a structure that often mirrors those of firms, except that in this case, the pay is measured spirtually. Since it operates around the same principles why not tax the church? If you want fairness and equity then TAX all religion (who might be holding god knows how much surplus funds) and use the funds to fund much more substantial things like healthcare and education. Finally since they are paying their employees spiritually, then they dont really need all those spare cash anyway. (And no dont get started on taxing those rich people, they earned their cash and they do pay their taxes already)

Yep I agree, relgion should not be excempt from tax. Except we should of course tax rich people.

I have far too much respect for God to associate Him in any way with the swimming pool of faeces that constitutes "state".

The United States was founded on an ideal it didn't live up to. I don't consider the last two hundred plus years of striving to that ideal to be 'liberalism'. I don't see regressing from that ideal to be conservatism. Neither did that other chap from long ago. What was his name? *thinks* It's right on the tip of my tongue... oh yeah... Jesus. :)

The United States was founded on an ideal it didn't live up to. I don't consider the last two hundred plus years of striving to that ideal to be 'liberalism'. I don't see regressing from that ideal to be conservatism. Neither did that other chap from long ago. What was his name? *thinks* It's right on the tip of my tongue... oh yeah... Jesus. :)

LG makes a good point here-Jesus himself was highly suspicious and critical of heirarchies of any sort. In his views, as expressed in both direct quotes from the Bible and the "Gospel of Thomas", each man has a one-on-one with God, distinct from Church heirarchies. Of course, the idea Man can commune with God without a Heirarchy is almost as blasphemous as LG making a valid point.
Good Lord, the creampuffs are truly upon us!

as the first country to not discriminate against Jews

Khazaria disagrees.

I have far too much respect for God to associate Him in any way with the swimming pool of faeces that constitutes "state".

Quite ironic, seeing as I have far too much respect for the US to associate it with the pool of feces they call religion....

Good Lord, the creampuffs are truly upon us!

Indeed! *tosses creampuffs everywhere*

Because to conservatives freedom of religion means freedom to be Christian. To those of us who actually know what we're talking about, thats not what it means. Thus, we're "godless".

To conservatives seperation of church and state means Christians get special treatment and all other religions or lack there of are marginalized. But its somehow still "equal". Anything short of special treatment for Christians, to the right, translates into "OMGEEE TEH LEFT WANTS TO STEAL UR BIBLEZ!!1!1!"


All though, Ive never found "godless liberal" to be an insult anymore than Ive found "metalhead" or "sexual pervert" to be an insult.

I mean...er...ignore that last one.

Although I'm not entirely opposed to fictional/noncorporeal/nonhuman entities running (or being run) for seats in government.

Is your real name Lunatic Goofballs? somehow I'd have expected him to be slightly tilted towards allowing weird things to run for office
- - - - -

as for the godless liberals debate, its simple, Liberals support the lack of god in life, and the removal of existing religious ideals in favor of supporting minority interests

Religion has alot of simple ideals that most people can accept and lead a normal life without having to worry, however Liberals refuse most basic such guidelines in favor of making their own personal rules for life

Religion says God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Commoragh for a reason, but liberals support gays
Aside from the 10 commandments, religion has a small list of things that people should not do, but liberals are against these and other rules for they think these rules put too much restriction on peoples lives

In truth, religion only puts limits on those who by instinct or choice cannot or will not settle down to normal lives, and the Liberals proves themselves to be neo-anarchists by supporting the lack of/removal of religious/moral guidelines

Officially, the US government begins with the statement "All Men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, Chief among these being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".


Declaration of Independence was not a government document. It was propaganda. Besides, "creator" is more or less a diest reference, and if you read the original, unedited version, its pretty clear theyre refering to a diest diety.

Not really-to the minds of the Founders, Christianity was the only "true" religion

This is just pure falsehood to the point were it makes my head hurt. The vast majority of the founding fathers were diests, and a few were athiests. Our treatment of the Native Americans had nothing to do with religion and was just a convenient excuse used to whip the people into a frenzy.

as for the godless liberals debate, its simple, Liberals support the lack of god in life, and the removal of existing religious ideals in favor of supporting minority interests

Religion has alot of simple ideals that most people can accept and lead a normal life without having to worry, however Liberals refuse most basic such guidelines in favor of making their own personal rules for life

Religion says God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Commoragh for a reason, but liberals support gays
Aside from the 10 commandments, religion has a small list of things that people should not do, but liberals are against these and other rules for they think these rules put too much restriction on peoples lives

In truth, religion only puts limits on those who by instinct or choice cannot or will not settle down to normal lives, and the Liberals proves themselves to be neo-anarchists by supporting the lack of/removal of religious/moral guidelines
I don't really have the time to properly dissect this here steaming pile, but I'm sure someone else will be along shortly to do it justice.

I'll just say that you appear to be conflating religion with Christianity, or at least with some kind of Bible-based faith. It makes you look a bit narrow-minded and silly.

Is your real name Lunatic Goofballs? somehow I'd have expected him to be slightly tilted towards allowing weird things to run for office
- - - - -

as for the godless liberals debate, its simple, Liberals support the lack of god in life, and the removal of existing religious ideals in favor of supporting minority interests

Religion has alot of simple ideals that most people can accept and lead a normal life without having to worry, however Liberals refuse most basic such guidelines in favor of making their own personal rules for life

Religion says God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Commoragh for a reason, but liberals support gays
Aside from the 10 commandments, religion has a small list of things that people should not do, but liberals are against these and other rules for they think these rules put too much restriction on peoples lives

In truth, religion only puts limits on those who by instinct or choice cannot or will not settle down to normal lives, and the Liberals proves themselves to be neo-anarchists by supporting the lack of/removal of religious/moral guidelines


Jawohl mein Führer! The liberals are out to get your Bibles and force every straight male into a life homosexuality! We must protect ourselves from their clear lack of any moral code what so ever! I shall prepare the trains to take them to the camps!


Now, what shall we do about the Jewish problem?

as for the godless liberals debate, its simple, Liberals support the lack of god in life, and the removal of existing religious ideals in favor of supporting minority interests

Religion has alot of simple ideals that most people can accept and lead a normal life without having to worry, however Liberals refuse most basic such guidelines in favor of making their own personal rules for life

Religion says God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Commoragh for a reason, but liberals support gays
Aside from the 10 commandments, religion has a small list of things that people should not do, but liberals are against these and other rules for they think these rules put too much restriction on peoples lives

In truth, religion only puts limits on those who by instinct or choice cannot or will not settle down to normal lives, and the Liberals proves themselves to be neo-anarchists by supporting the lack of/removal of religious/moral guidelines

What a load of croc. I'm certianly a liberal both policitaly and socialogiclay, but *gasp* religious also!

Well, the educated among us want a separation of church and state. However, the educated are not in the majority in the US; most people here want to force their religion upon others.

I think it's more that the vast majority of Americans misunderstand exactly what this means, or simply don't fully realize what pushing their religious beliefs on others really does.

It's a case of accidental ignorance, ignorance which is encouraged and preyed upon by a lot of politicians. :mad:

Declaration of Independence was not a government document. It was propaganda. Besides, "creator" is more or less a diest reference, and if you read the original, unedited version, its pretty clear theyre refering to a diest diety.
I pretty much made this point in the initial statement-so it's kinda given.


This is just pure falsehood to the point were it makes my head hurt. The vast majority of the founding fathers were diests, and a few were athiests. Our treatment of the Native Americans had nothing to do with religion and was just a convenient excuse used to whip the people into a frenzy.
Christianity, Satanism, and Atheism all have Christian roots-as does Deism-as stated before, our Founding Fathers were sandwiched between Catholics and a wilderness, riding herd on diverse heretical groups-if the Jewish belief God is a being that exists in the here and now, should not the here and then be considered in their words? While the Founders did give the Divine a mask under their terms, cannot these terms be considered for what they were?

What a load of croc. I'm certianly a liberal both policitaly and socialogiclay, but *gasp* religious also!

Yes, but you don't follow a god, but an imaginary being, because only the Christian God is real. You are therefore godless and actually a satanist who rapes babies.

I pretty much made this point in the initial statement-so it's kinda given.



Christianity, Satanism, and Atheism all have Christian roots-as does Deism-as stated before, our Founding Fathers were sandwiched between Catholics and a wilderness, riding herd on diverse heretical groups-if the Jewish belief God is a being that exists in the here and now, should not the here and then be considered in their words? While the Founders did give the Divine a mask under their terms, cannot these terms be considered for what they were?

How does atheism have roots in Christianity? Or any religion at all except in believing their gods/whatever don't exist?

Right. The founding fathers were all Christians. Contrary to his beliefs, for example, Thomas Jefferson was not a Deist, but a Christian.

Technically Napoléon and Voltaire were too; but what about effectively?

I pretty much made this point in the initial statement-so it's kinda given.



Christianity, Satanism, and Atheism all have Christian roots-as does Deism-as stated before, our Founding Fathers were sandwiched between Catholics and a wilderness, riding herd on diverse heretical groups-if the Jewish belief God is a being that exists in the here and now, should not the here and then be considered in their words? While the Founders did give the Divine a mask under their terms, cannot these terms be considered for what they were?

This just doesn't makes any sense.Its an outright LIE. :mad:

There were atheist in ancient Greece waaaaaaay before the greeks even knew about Christianity.

Christianity, Satanism, and Atheism all have Christian roots

Atheism predates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)christianity by 3.5-4.4 billion years.

This just doesn't makes any sense.Its an outright LIE. :mad:

There were atheist in ancient Greece waaaaaaay before the greeks even knew about Christianity.

I am referring to modern Atheism, much as neopagans have little to draw on other than the Victorian sanitization of their beliefs

How does atheism have roots in Christianity? Or any religion at all except in believing their gods/whatever don't exist?

If the Judeo/Christian God isn't almighty, why must so much time be spent refuting Him?

I am referring to modern Atheism, much as neopagans have little to draw on other than the Victorian sanitization of their beliefsBack this up please.
If the Judeo/Christian God isn't almighty, why must so much time be spent refuting Him?Because his followers are so numerous.

as for the godless liberals debate, its simple, Liberals support the lack of god in life, and the removal of existing religious ideals in favor of supporting minority interests

Religion has alot of simple ideals that most people can accept and lead a normal life without having to worry, however Liberals refuse most basic such guidelines in favor of making their own personal rules for life

Religion says God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Commoragh for a reason, but liberals support gays
Aside from the 10 commandments, religion has a small list of things that people should not do, but liberals are against these and other rules for they think these rules put too much restriction on peoples lives

In truth, religion only puts limits on those who by instinct or choice cannot or will not settle down to normal lives, and the Liberals proves themselves to be neo-anarchists by supporting the lack of/removal of religious/moral guidelines

You know, I was going to respond to this. But I can't help but think it has to be a joke. Now I just hope I'm right.

I am referring to modern Atheism, much as neopagans have little to draw on other than the Victorian sanitization of their beliefs

You are completely misguided if you believe modern Atheism has roots on christianity. Atheism isn't the opposition to modern christianity. Atheism hasn't changed a bit in its 3-4 billion years of history. The absence of believe predates any religion.

You know, I was going to respond to this. But I can't help but think it has to be a joke. Now I just hope I'm right.Read his post history. I can't say for sure if you'll still think it's a joke or not, but I'm sure you'll be glad you didn't waste any more time than you did responding to it.

You are completely misguided if you believe modern Atheism has roots on christianity. Atheism isn't the opposition to modern christianity. Atheism hasn't changed a bit in its 3-4 billion years of history. The absence of believe predates any religion.

Or goes in tandem with religious beliefs.:wink:

If the Judeo/Christian God isn't almighty, why must so much time be spent refuting Him?

Really, I've always thought this was one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. Hell, I was religious (Christian, specifically) when I first heard it, and I burst out laughing.

1.) Few, if any, atheists spend all of their time trying to disprove Christianity. However, let's turn the question around: every time an atheist debates a theist, a theist (obviously) is debating as well. If Atheism is false, then why must so much time be spent proving God?

2.) Theism, especially Christianity, is an extremely prevalent idea, and Christians (or, many of them, but by no means all) love to try to force their beliefs into law. Religion becomes an issue when Christians try to tell me I cannot buy alcohol on Sundays, that I shouldn't use contraceptives, or otherwise try to use the law to interfere with things that are none of their damn business.

3.) There are other obviously wrong ideas that are often debated; that doesn't mean that they have any validity. For example, people still debate Creationism because, despite the clear evidence that the world is much, much older than 6,000 years, a large number of people still cling to it.

If the Judeo/Christian god isn't almighty, why must so much time be spent refuting him?

Becasuse the alternative is more crapfests like prop 8.

Back this up please.
Because his followers are so numerous.

Refuting a belief is a simple matter of breaking away-disparaging those who believe is tyranical-your basic argument is flawed. The US Founders didn't disparage those who believe-they simply hid the Creator under various masks-Providence ( or Blind Stupid Clueless Doo-Dah Luck) being the most common. To a true pagan, Jesus was a boddisatva, and the interpretations brought to his preachings an unfortunate legacy of Man's basic inferiority. Bear in mind that Ghandi's opinion was that the most enlightened mind in Europe was Hitler's.
Any belief on my part that it was due to Hitler being the most likely to break the British stranglehold on India is purely due to my intrinsic cynicism.

Refuting a belief is a simple matter of breaking away-disparaging those who believe is tyranical-your basic argument is flawed. The US Founders didn't disparage those who believe-they simply hid the Creator under various masks-Providence ( or Blind Stupid Clueless Doo-Dah Luck) being the most common. To a true pagan, Jesus was a boddisatva, and the interpretations brought to his preachings an unfortunate legacy of Man's basic inferiority. Bear in mind that Ghandi's opinion was that the most enlightened mind in Europe was Hitler's.
Any belief on my part that it was due to Hitler being the most likely to break the British stranglehold on India is purely due to my intrinsic cynicism.Gee. This has nothing to do with anything on this page.

Or goes in tandem with religious beliefs.:wink:

Uh no. You see, religions are structured forms of belief. They need time to develop. In the beginning primitive men had no concept of god, the had many superstitions and rituals, worshiped nature and their ancestors but an idea as complex (and twisted) as a omnipotent, omnipresent creator was not present. No concept of god = atheist, of sorts.

With time the ancestors gained a divine nature...and just then the first creation myths appeared. It took waaay a lot of time to arrive to the current state monotheistic religions.

Really, I've always thought this was one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. Hell, I was religious (Christian, specifically) when I first heard it, and I burst out laughing.

1.) Few, if any, atheists spend all of their time trying to disprove Christianity. However, let's turn the question around: every time an atheist debates a theist, a theist (obviously) is debating as well. If Atheism is false, then why must so much time be spent proving God?
Few Atheists are ever debated-in modern times, it's a pissing contest. However, there is no argument without opposition, and how any arguments are started with the existence of God? Obviously, the existence of God is a given, especially given our choice of swear words-few, if any, blaspheme in the name of "The Scientific Principles that Guide Our Existence"

2.) Theism, especially Christianity, is an extremely prevalent idea, and Christians (or, many of them, but by no means all) love to try to force their beliefs into law. Religion becomes an issue when Christians try to tell me I cannot buy alcohol on Sundays, that I shouldn't use contraceptives, or otherwise try to use the law to interfere with things that are none of their damn business. I'm not going into Blue Laws, save that their existence sort of proclaims our society's Christian heritage.
3.) There are other obviously wrong ideas that are often debated; that doesn't mean that they have any validity. For example, people still debate Creationism because, despite the clear evidence that the world is much, much older than 6,000 years, a large number of people still cling to it.If it's still debated, it's not "obviously wrong"-it's undecided. Don't force your "obviously right" opinions on me-or is that a purely Christian concept? Given the evidence-and the primitive beliefs of our ancestors that Man was created, do not ring true, neither does Evolution. One needs evidence to prove or disprove something, and if the Creationist "theory" or the Evolution "theory" had any credence, they wouldn't be theories.
Bear in mind, the sasquatch is a protected species in Washington State:it exists as a legal entity, but not as a scientific entity, but quite frankly, there's more evidence for it's existence than either of the prevailing theories. It is time enough for Man to admit there is a summit at which he must say "I do not know"

Few Atheists are ever debated-in modern times, it's a pissing contest. However, there is no argument without opposition, and how any arguments are started with the existence of God? Obviously, the existence of God is a given, especially given our choice of swear words-few, if any, blaspheme in the name of "The Scientific Principles that Guide Our Existence"


So when I say " By Zeus!" I'm acknowledging the existence of the roman god?:confused:

What about the common Mexican curse "¡Ya me cayó el chahuistle!" (The Chahuistle hass fell upon me!). Is it an implicit acceptance than impish aztec deities cause us ill if proper sacrifices aren´t offered?

Few Atheists are ever debated-in modern times, it's a pissing contest. However, there is no argument without opposition, and how any arguments are started with the existence of God? Obviously, the existence of God is a given, especially given our choice of swear words-few, if any, blaspheme in the name of "The Scientific Principles that Guide Our Existence"This is silly, considering that people calling Roman and Greek Gods into question were atheists as well. You don't need a Christian God to refute the existence of deities. Any will do.

So when I say " By Zeus!" I'm acknowledging the existence of the roman god?:confused:
No. The Greek one, perhaps.

Why is this such a great complaint? Why do persons complain that liberals want to take God out of the government? Do we not want a separation of church and state?
What's with all this God nonsense?
Satan for patron, of America!

No. The Greek one, perhaps.

Ahhhh they are the same! :mad:

Ahhhh they are the same! :mad:Except the Romans called theirs Jupiter... =P

Ahhhh they are the same! :mad:

Really? I always thought that was Jupiter.
Can't have a filthy Greek name for our Roman god, y'know.

Edit: beaten to the punch!

This is silly, considering that people calling Roman and Greek Gods into question were atheists as well. You don't need a Christian God to refute the existence of deities. Any will do.

Curse in their names, and you have a point-but when you hit yourself on the thumb with a hammer, who springs to your lips?

Curse in their names, and you have a point-but when you hit yourself on the thumb with a hammer, who springs to your lips?

the hammer's mom

Curse in their names, and you have a point-but when you hit yourself on the thumb with a hammer, who springs to your lips?Jove.
I try to not diss the Christian God. It's kind of sad, really. :p

So when I say " By Zeus!" I'm acknowledging the existence of the roman god?:confused:

What about the common Mexican curse "¡Ya me cayó el chahuistle!" (The Chahuistle hass fell upon me!). Is it an implicit acceptance than impish aztec deities cause us ill if proper sacrifices aren´t offered?

Yes-the gods are constructs of the human mind, therefore, by invoking them, you also empower them. My children inform me my own invocations of "Jesus Christ!" have also empowered him far beyond my actual belief...

Yes-the gods are constructs of the human mind, therefore, by invoking them, you also empower them. My children inform me my own invocations of "Jesus Christ!" have also empowered him far beyond my actual belief...

and when I say "Me cago en dios!" which is a spanish translation of a common italian curse which I employ often....it empowers Him?

If it's still debated, it's not "obviously wrong"-it's undecided. Don't force your "obviously right" opinions on me-or is that a purely Christian concept? Given the evidence-and the primitive beliefs of our ancestors that Man was created, do not ring true, neither does Evolution. One needs evidence to prove or disprove something, and if the Creationist "theory" or the Evolution "theory" had any credence, they wouldn't be theories.
Bear in mind, the sasquatch is a protected species in Washington State:it exists as a legal entity, but not as a scientific entity, but quite frankly, there's more evidence for it's existence than either of the prevailing theories. It is time enough for Man to admit there is a summit at which he must say "I do not know"

Um.....you're just trolling for responses, right?

Please tell me this post wasn't actually serious.

Curse in their names, and you have a point-but when you hit yourself on the thumb with a hammer, who springs to your lips?I cuss out the Kentucky screwdriver itself, actually.

and when I say "Me cago en dios!" which is a spanish translation of a common italian curse which I employ often....it empowers Him?

The curse does specify an inherent belief, does it not? Most curses are uttered with an inherent belief behind them, therefore, it is what you truly believe, and adequate belief moves quite past an individual...

The curse does specify an inherent belief, does it not? Most curses are uttered with an inherent belief behind them, therefore, it is what you truly believe, and adequate belief moves quite past an individual...
I do not accept that curses involving the names of deities -- "Oh my God!", "Jesus Christ!" or whatever -- necessarily imply any belief. They're simply phrases that have, through repetition over time, passed into the lexicon. As I've said before in responses to similar nonsense, your reasoning would also imply belief in Thor for anyone using the word Thursday, and belief in countless other deities for a large number of other commonly used words and phrases.

I do not accept that curses involving the names of deities -- "Oh my God!", "Jesus Christ!" or whatever -- necessarily imply any belief. They're simply phrases that have, through repetition over time, passed into the lexicon. As I've said before in responses to similar nonsense, your reasoning would also imply belief in Thor for anyone using the word Thursday, and belief in countless other deities for a large number of other commonly used words and phrases.

How many people actually know Thursday meant "Thor's Day"? By comparison, how many people know yelling "Jesus Christ!" means something? How many can you offend by either? Belief is a matter of ideals

How many people actually know Thursday meant "Thor's Day"? By comparison, how many people know yelling "Jesus Christ!" means something? How many can you offend by either? Belief is a matter of ideals

Now its clear he is trolling. :mad:

Few Atheists are ever debated-in modern times, it's a pissing contest. However, there is no argument without opposition, and how any arguments are started with the existence of God? Obviously, the existence of God is a given, especially given our choice of swear words-few, if any, blaspheme in the name of "The Scientific Principles that Guide Our Existence"

I fail to see how swear words are relevant. Language is a cultural construct. I mean, I assume you use the standard names for the days of the week and for the months of the year. Where do you think those come from? Calling the first month of our year "January" does not mean that you believe in Janus. Similarly, use of the word "Thursday" does not mean that you believe in Thor.


I'm not going into Blue Laws, save that their existence sort of proclaims our society's Christian heritage.

We still have those laws because of Christian opposition to changing them. You also ignored the other examples. For example, we have Christians trying to restrict access to birth control.


If it's still debated, it's not "obviously wrong"-it's undecided. Don't force your "obviously right" opinions on me-or is that a purely Christian concept? Given the evidence-and the primitive beliefs of our ancestors that Man was created, do not ring true, neither does Evolution. One needs evidence to prove or disprove something, and if the Creationist "theory" or the Evolution "theory" had any credence, they wouldn't be theories.

In science, a theory does not mean what you think it means. Also, Creationism cannot properly be called a theory. A hypothesis, perhaps.


Bear in mind, the sasquatch is a protected species in Washington State:it exists as a legal entity, but not as a scientific entity, but quite frankly, there's more evidence for it's existence than either of the prevailing theories.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Sasquatch would not, in any way, disprove evolution.


It is time enough for Man to admit there is a summit at which he must say "I do not know"

Certainly. There are many things I do not know. However, there are also things that can be known with a good deal of confidence. Evolution is one of these. The evidence in favor of it is astounding.

Yes we do. Although not all of us are Godless.

Some of us have LOTS of gods.

How many people actually know Thursday meant "Thor's Day"? By comparison, how many people know yelling "Jesus Christ!" means something? How many can you offend by either? Belief is a matter of ideals
How many people? I neither know, nor care. It wasn't me that made the indefensible claim that using certain words or phrases specified "an inherent belief" and represented what people "truly believe".

How many people actually know Thursday meant "Thor's Day"? By comparison, how many people know yelling "Jesus Christ!" means something? How many can you offend by either? Belief is a matter of ideals

But, by your argument, if you do know that Thursday is "Thor's Day," and you use the word, then you believe in Thor.

You know, I was going to respond to this. But I can't help but think it has to be a joke. Now I just hope I'm right.

Kirchensittenbach is one of two things. Either he's a

http://www.horrorstew.com/images/PoeBox.jpg

or he's

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2158911/2159086/2159087/070221_CL_HitlerEX.jpg

Why is this such a great complaint? Why do persons complain that liberals want to take God out of the government? Do we not want a separation of church and state?

I'm a liberal, but I am not godless, though I'm not Christian either.

I think church and state being separate is a basic issue of fairness. If the state enacts laws based on the tenets of any particular faith, that's favoritism towards that one, and discrimination against the rest.

How many people? I neither know, nor care. It wasn't me that made the indefensible claim that using certain words or phrases specified "an inherent belief" and represented what people "truly believe".

How is the claim indefensible? Words mean things

But, by your argument, if you do know that Thursday is "Thor's Day," and you use the word, then you believe in Thor.
And why shouldn't I believe in Thor? He's a stereotypical dumb blonde-albeit a redhead

How is the claim indefensible? Words mean things
I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at, here. Of course words mean things... they'd be pretty damned useless if that were not the case.

You stated that cursing -- e.g. "For God's sake!" -- indicated a belief in God, because using words shows some kind of belief (hard to tell, it's not exactly a coherent argument). I responded with the classic Thursday/Thor's Day example, and you tried to qualify your earlier assertion by pointing out that many people might not know the origin of the English names for days of the week.

Well, I do know their origins. I can also merrily wend my way through the likes of the month of March, calling it by name as appropriate, and regularly speak of all sorts of phenomena such as typhoons and hurricanes and yet I hold no belief in the likes of Mars, Typhon or Huracán.

Indefensible, whilst accurate, was far too generous a descriptor for your claim. It's just rubbish.

And why shouldn't I believe in Thor? He's a stereotypical dumb blonde-albeit a redhead

Because Christianity and Norse paganism are mutually incompatible. YHVH precludes Thor. It is a contradiction to be both a Christian and a pagan.

The use of a word does not imply that you believe in the existence of what it once referred to. A word is an arbitrary symbol that only means something because of common consent.

Yes, "Jesus Christ" can refer to Yeshua of Nazareth. But it can also be little more than an interjection. Further, even when used to refer to Yeshua, it does not imply belief. Consider the statement, "Jesus Christ did not exist."

That does not imply any belief, despite the use of the name. I've also used "FSM Damnit!" The FSM is still a fictional character.

And even if the use of god as an exclamation demonstrated belief, common belief would not demonstrate existence. People once believed that the earth was the center of the universe; that did not make it so. If no deities exist, but every person in the world believed they did, then every person in the world would be wrong.

And why shouldn't I believe in Thor? He's a stereotypical dumb blonde-albeit a redhead

With a big hammer who goes around in his chariot pulled by flying goats smashing the heads of Jotuns.

You know, I was going to respond to this. But I can't help but think it has to be a joke. Now I just hope I'm right.

Its a joke only as much as truly being a Nazi-sympathizer and a rampent homophobe are a joke.

Why is this such a great complaint? Why do persons complain that liberals want to take God out of the government? Do we not want a separation of church and state?
What about us religious liberals, huh? What about us, huh? Why doesn't anyone ever mention us, huh? huh? HUH?

The notion of Church and State separation is really quite silly. To have total Church and State Separation you would need total secularism thus you would need to get rid of anyone with any personal Religious which is roughly 76% of the American Population.

In all seriousness who really cares if Under God is in the Pledge, if it's on our money, and so on. If the "godless liberals" really have to take the time to get offended over that, then you have to sort your priorities.
You clearly don't know what the separation of church and state is. All it means is that government INSTITUTIONS and religious INSTITUTIONS should be kept separate; that the government will not impose a state religion on the people and will let the people worship as they like.

And if the government is supposed to be entirely secular, then why should God be mentioned on the money? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

It's like telling atheists, "you're second class citizens, and we don't care that this pledge and this money doesn't represent you."

What about us religious liberals, huh? What about us, huh? Why doesn't anyone ever mention us, huh? huh? HUH?

Because just like liberty, porn, and the French army, religious liberals are in fact a myth.

I for one refuse to believe in any of these preposterous notions.

With a big hammer who goes around in his chariot pulled by flying goats smashing the heads of Jotuns.

I would. *nod*

Right. The founding fathers were all Christians. Contrary to his beliefs, for example, Thomas Jefferson was not a Deist, but a Christian.

That's also why the Treaty of Tripoli says "Since the government of the United States is in every way founded upon the Christian Religion."

Game over atheists. You are stupid, horrible people.
The irony, it BURNS!

I would. *nod*

I was just completing his sentence. I did not think his description of Thor as dumb and blonde/redhead really captured the full picture.

I was just completing his sentence. I did not think his description of Thor as dumb and blonde/redhead really captured the full picture.

I'm just saying that if I had a giant hammer and flying goats, I would get out a lot more. *nod*

I'm just saying that if I had a giant hammer and flying goats, I would get out a lot more. *nod*

Oh yeah, of course. So would I. Big ol hammer and a chariot pulled by flying goats would definitely get me out of the house.

If the Judeo/Christian God isn't almighty, why must so much time be spent refuting Him?
Just because millions of children believe in Santa Claus and can describe what he does and what he looks like to a t, does not mean anyone has to worry about a chubby bearded elf getting stuck in their fireplace.

I'm just saying that if I had a giant hammer and flying goats, I would get out a lot more. *nod*

Oh yeah, of course. So would I. Big ol hammer and a chariot pulled by flying goats would definitely get me out of the house.

"Honey? I'm going out to smash some giants."

"Open the door on your way out this time. Don't smash it.'

"Yes dear."

:D

*shrug* off to Vatican City with you then.Shh!!!!!!!!

The pope has magical Jesus powers. He can hear us. He can convet us.:eek:

Curse in their names, and you have a point-but when you hit yourself on the thumb with a hammer, who springs to your lips?
"Motherfucking son of a bitch!," usually. Sometimes using a rooster as a lollipop also works its way in there, right before "son". ;)

We wantz christian theocracy yarr! DEATH TO THE GODLESS MUSLIM LIBERALS!


Hey, jerks, I don't believe in any religion, so stop shoving yours down my throat. I mean really, do you people waste all your time on religion, I say skip it, why waste the time? You could focusing on real world issues, like the myth called "Global Warming" or "Poverty." What I say, give up. Theirs no use, and every other religion wants you to leave them alone. And by the way, Muslim is not a generic word for "Not one of us."

Hey, jerks, I don't believe in any religion, so stop shoving yours down my throat. I mean really, do you people waste all your time on religion, I say skip it, why waste the time? You could focusing on real world issues, like the myth called "Global Warming" or "Poverty." What I say, give up. Theirs no use, and every other religion wants you to leave them alone. And by the way, Muslim is not a generic word for "Not one of us."
I think your irony meter burned out.

Why do you say that? Because I speak my mind? Because you don't like what you hear? Because I stand up for others who are tired of these "Christians" and "Evangelicals?"

How is the claim indefensible? Words mean things
And Thursday means the fourth day of the workweek, in English. Just as "nice" used to mean "precise" and now means "pleasant"; words change.

Why do you say that? Because I speak my mind? Because you don't like what you hear? Because I stand up for others who are tired of these "Christians" and "Evangelicals?"
No, because clearly he was making a joke that apparently you're not getting. He was not serious; he was parodying the type of ignoramus that would say that.

Why is this such a great complaint?

Becaue it is somewhat opposite to their beliefs

Why do persons complain that liberals want to take God out of the government?[?QUOTE]

Because the American liberals do

[QUOTE]Do we not want a separation of church and state?

Who is we?

Becaue it is somewhat opposite to their beliefs

[QUOTE]Why do persons complain that liberals want to take God out of the government?[?QUOTE]

Because the American liberals do



Who is we?

Why do you people even try? News Flash: Science proves that their is no way a "God" or "Supreme Being." Why is it so important that "Your God" is in government, and "My God" is not? Why do people waste time on religion, and if anyone quotes me, please don't respond with "It gives people hope!" because it doesn't. It gives people a false hope, which they twist to fit their bidding.

What about us religious liberals, huh? What about us, huh? Why doesn't anyone ever mention us, huh? huh? HUH?


Though I'm happy to be a godless liberal, I used to frequent a site you might like http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/
Hope you enjoy.

Becaue it is somewhat opposite to their beliefs



Why do you people even try? News Flash: Science proves that their is no way a "God" or "Supreme Being." Why is it so important that "Your God" is in government, and "My God" is not? Why do people waste time on religion, and if anyone quotes me, please don't respond with "It gives people hope!" because it doesn't. It gives people a false hope, which they twist to fit their bidding.
Please come back when you can post something that makes sense.

Not all religious people are conservative. I'm not, after all. I support equal rights (and that includes marriage) for gays, the right of women to have an abortion if that is what they choose, comprehensive sex education (including education about condoms and birth control), and the separation of church and state. But I do believe in god (just not the Christian/Jewish/Muslim one).

Thanks for thinking of me, Bitchkitten. :)

Thanks for thinking of me, Bitchkitten. :)Anytime.

Why do you people even try? News Flash: Science proves that their is no way a "God" or "Supreme Being." Why is it so important that "Your God" is in government, and "My God" is not? Why do people waste time on religion, and if anyone quotes me, please don't respond with "It gives people hope!" because it doesn't. It gives people a false hope, which they twist to fit their bidding.

Government has always and will always be about people trying to get their beliefs made into law.

-snip-

What? why did you include me in that? I know not all religious people are conservative, my post was more to do with those people that are.

Just because millions of children believe in Santa Claus and can describe what he does and what he looks like to a t, does not mean anyone has to worry about a chubby bearded elf getting stuck in their fireplace.
After last Christmas and my fireworks disaster we certainly don't.

Kirchensittenbach is one of two things. Either he's a

more like
http://i38.tinypic.com/2n99q3r.jpg

What? why did you include me in that? I know not all religious people are conservative, my post was more to do with those people that are.

It was unintentional. I had thought quote pyramids were still disabled. I was responding to the guy who was responding to you.

You are completely misguided if you believe modern Atheism has roots on christianity. Atheism isn't the opposition to modern christianity. Atheism hasn't changed a bit in its 3-4 billion years of history. The absence of believe predates any religion.
But "the absence of belief" being the definition of atheism is very recent. Socrates was called an atheist. Early Christians were called atheists. Thomas Jefferson, a deist, was called atheist. In that sense modern atheism is new.

Government has always and will always be about people trying to get their beliefs made into law.

I'd say that's actually a misuse of government. Simply enforcing people's beliefs is not a legitimate authority of government.

Few Atheists are ever debated-in modern times, it's a pissing contest. However, there is no argument without opposition, and how any arguments are started with the existence of God? Obviously, the existence of God is a given, especially given our choice of swear words-few, if any, blaspheme in the name of "The Scientific Principles that Guide Our Existence"

Probably because those are cultural and are based on the fact that religion has been pretty important to society for a very long time now...

And seriously, have you ever tried that? "By Newton's Third Law!" "Science you, bitch!"

I mean, really, it sounds ridiculous.

Probably because those are cultural and are based on the fact that religion has been pretty important to society for a very long time now...

And seriously, have you ever tried that? "By Newton's Third Law!" "Science you, bitch!"

I mean, really, it sounds ridiculous.

I'm totally going to start doing that, only with bio words.

*drops beaker*
"Oh, Astrocyte!"

*stubs toe*
"Duodenum!"

other then indiginous native traditions, it is so called "conservatives" that are "godless".

every revealed organized belief, every way of life attempted to be taught by the revealers of organized belief, every devinely appointed channeler of the devine will who'se teachings from the core of every reavealed belief, was and is "socialist".

I'm totally going to start doing that, only with bio words.

*drops beaker*
"Oh, Astrocyte!"

*stubs toe*
"Duodenum!"

I know I said I was leaving until December, but I came up with one that I had to contribute:


Go replicate yourself!:D


Ok, Im gone again.

other then indiginous native traditions, it is so called "conservatives" that are "godless".

every revealed organized belief, every way of life attempted to be taught by the revealers of organized belief, every devinely appointed channeler of the devine will who'se teachings from the core of every reavealed belief, was and is "socialist".

That makes no sense.

I'd say that's actually a misuse of government. Simply enforcing people's beliefs is not a legitimate authority of government.

But that is what the government is all about. They believe you should only drive 40Km/hr in the city then they will legislate that belief and enforce people to follow it.

It was unintentional. I had thought quote pyramids were still disabled. I was responding to the guy who was responding to you.

Quite alright.

That makes no sense.

only if one takes popular idiologically contrived myth for granted, without ever honestly and objectively studying the actual teachings of ANY organized belief.

But that is what the government is all about. They believe you should only drive 40Km/hr in the city then they will legislate that belief and enforce people to follow it.


The reason it is illegal to go that fast on that road is not because of some belief, it is because of safety. It's not "I think it is immoral to go faster than 40 mph on that road, so it should be illegal," but "it is unsafe to go faster than 40 mph, so we have a vested interest in enforcing such a speed limit."

Because Christianity and Norse paganism are mutually incompatible. YHVH precludes Thor.

He only preclude Thor if you assume he is being truthful when he proclaims that he is the only god (in fact in most places He only declares that Jews are not allowed to worship others, and in some actually seems to admit the existence of other gods).

He only preclude Thor if you assume he is being truthful when he proclaims that he is the only god (in fact in most places He only declares that Jews are not allowed to worship others, and in some actually seems to admit the existence of other gods).

Touché.

The reason it is illegal to go that fast on that road is not because of some belief, it is because of safety. It's not "I think it is immoral to go faster than 40 mph on that road, so it should be illegal," but "it is unsafe to go faster than 40 mph, so we have a vested interest in enforcing such a speed limit."

Well in light of this I wish I had saved Neo Art's post which would refute this ti a tee.

But let us take another example then Free trade, if it is someone's belief that a country should have absolute free trade than they will attempt to get the government to legislate it, government is all about legislating your beliefs. Actually if it is your belief that road safety is paramount then you will attempt to make legislation to achieve this aim such as making the limit 40 kp/hr

Now its clear he is trolling. :mad:Actually, you only need to look at his nation page to figure that out.

That makes no sense.

Actually, it quite does. Most religions, if you actually read up on them, place great importance on helping the poor and less fortunate.

Why do you say that? Because I speak my mind? Because you don't like what you hear? Because I stand up for others who are tired of these "Christians" and "Evangelicals?"

No I suspect because your irony meter has broken. Ahahahha:D

Jefferson's letters were actually his buying his way out of a problem with his constituency regarding his not adhering to their religious beliefs as a representative of their region.
Officially, the US government begins with the statement "All Men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, Chief among these being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".
This sort of flies in the face of Separation of Church and State, but rather like "No Taxation Without Representation", I suspect it was mere campaign rhetoric...
Silly. Creator =/= God.
as for the godless liberals debate, its simple, Liberals support the lack of god in life, and the removal of existing religious ideals in favor of supporting minority interests
False. Liberals support freedom. That's about the most simple way of explaining the ideology.

Religion has alot of simple ideals that most people can accept and lead a normal life without having to worry, however Liberals refuse most basic such guidelines in favor of making their own personal rules for life
That's not liberals, that's the non-religious. Even a lot of otherwise religious people will differ from the "official" position of their religion on some points. There are several Christians on this board who have no problem with gays, for example.

Religion says God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Commoragh for a reason, but liberals support gays
One religion says that Jehovah destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the cities were full of sinners of various kinds, gays among them. Thing is, an awful lot of people don't believe in Jehovah, and some of the people that do have different interpretations for that part of the bible. Why should all of us live according to the rules of your 2000 year old book?
Aside from the 10 commandments, religion has a small list of things that people should not do, but liberals are against these and other rules for they think these rules put too much restriction on peoples lives
Liberals are against them being made law simply because they're in the Bible, or any other religious text. And if you were better informed as to what the Bible said I dare say you would object too. Simple things like wearing clothes made from more than one fabric would be illegal.

Really, do you just use "liberal" as a word for hypothetical people who believe in the exact opposite of everything you do? Cos it's more complicated than that.

In truth, religion only puts limits on those who by instinct or choice cannot or will not settle down to normal lives, and the Liberals proves themselves to be neo-anarchists by supporting the lack of/removal of religious/moral guidelines
Normal lives by the definition of that religion. Do you live according to the morals of Hinduism, or Buddhism?
Atheism predates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)christianity by 3.5-4.4 billion years.
I would have thought that would have been obvious.
I am referring to modern Atheism, much as neopagans have little to draw on other than the Victorian sanitization of their beliefs
How is this relevant to separation of church and state?
EDIT: Since I have nothing better to do at the moment, how is not believing in any god or gods different now than it was a few thousand years ago?
Few Atheists are ever debated-in modern times, it's a pissing contest.
So what are you doing now?
However, there is no argument without opposition, and how any arguments are started with the existence of God?
Someone says God exists, someone else disagrees, argument ensues. Or vice versa.
Obviously, the existence of God is a given
In certain cultures. Way back when the existence of Zeus was just accepted. Doesn't mean he's real.
, especially given our choice of swear words-few, if any, blaspheme in the name of "The Scientific Principles that Guide Our Existence"
Which is simply because Christianity is so prevalent in European history and has shaped the culture and language of Europe to some extent. Not because God exists.

I'm not going into Blue Laws, save that their existence sort of proclaims our society's Christian heritage.
Having a Christian heritage is no reason to force a society to remain Christian. If it were then Christianity would never have come about.
If it's still debated, it's not "obviously wrong"-it's undecided. Don't force your "obviously right" opinions on me-or is that a purely Christian concept? Given the evidence-and the primitive beliefs of our ancestors that Man was created, do not ring true, neither does Evolution. One needs evidence to prove or disprove something, and if the Creationist "theory" or the Evolution "theory" had any credence, they wouldn't be theories.
You are fundamentally mistaken about what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. A scientific theory, by definition, has lots and lots of evidence to support it.
Bear in mind, the sasquatch is a protected species in Washington State:it exists as a legal entity, but not as a scientific entity, but quite frankly, there's more evidence for it's existence than either of the prevailing theories. It is time enough for Man to admit there is a summit at which he must say "I do not know"
There's more evidence in favour of the existence of Bigfoot than there is in favour of evolution? You could not be more wrong.

Well in light of this I wish I had saved Neo Art's post which would refute this ti a tee.

But let us take another example then Free trade, if it is someone's belief that a country should have absolute free trade than they will attempt to get the government to legislate it, government is all about legislating your beliefs. Actually if it is your belief that road safety is paramount then you will attempt to make legislation to achieve this aim such as making the limit 40 kp/hr

You're equivocating religious belief with a "belief" that has rational backing and pragmatic purpose. It is not the same to say "we should stop teh gayz from marrying because my religion says so" as it is to say, "we should institute speed limits because these benefits."

There has been some posts here about the the separation of state and religion, mostly referring to the US. In Australia, the matter is covered succintly in section 116 of the Constitution:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Oddly enough the preamble to the Constitution seems to contradict that section by imposing the observance of an "Almighty God":

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God,have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under theConstitution hereby established...

Generally, my take on comparing the two constitutions is the US declares a number of principles on which the society ought to be based, whereas the Oz constitution (very prosaic in comparison) simply lists what the Parliament must, can and cannot do.

But that is what the government is all about.

No, it isn't.

They believe you should only drive 40Km/hr in the city then they will legislate that belief and enforce people to follow it.

That isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of determining what is safe for the drivers on the road - and backing it up.

Thus, it is not simply "enforcing beliefs". Instead, it is a matter of protecting citizens - which is a legitimate authority of government.

Religion should have no say in goverment

I agree that there should be no official religion, and laws and justice should not be directly based on religious teachings, however, in a republic/democracy the people (allegedly) have all the say in government. The US (for example) is a nation of the people, etc., and people vote with their convictions, and convictions are often rooted in religion. I'm not going to vote against or disregard my religiously rooted convictions simply because of a "wall of separation between church and state", sorry.

I agree that there should be no official religion, and laws and justice should not be directly based on religious teachings, however, in a republic/democracy the people (allegedly) have all the say in government. The US (for example) is a nation of the people, etc., and people vote with their convictions, and convictions are often rooted in religion. I'm not going to vote against or disregard my religiously rooted convictions simply because of a "wall of separation between church and state", sorry.

Okay I can see that, yes of course many many people have a morality based on the tenants of their faith. And yes of course we all have the power over where to place our votes.

In this sense as somebody has pointed out religion and state can never really be seperated. But what I'm on about is religous people in office makeing laws based on relgiouse convictions that effect all the populous, for example.

I agree that there should be no official religion, and laws and justice should not be directly based on religious teachings, however, in a republic/democracy the people (allegedly) have all the say in government. The US (for example) is a nation of the people, etc., and people vote with their convictions, and convictions are often rooted in religion. I'm not going to vote against or disregard my religiously rooted convictions simply because of a "wall of separation between church and state", sorry.

You don't have to disregard your religious convictions. Just ask yourself one question before you vote for something that your religious convictions affect your viewpoint on:

Can this be justified as an action of government without the use of my religious views?

If the answer is no - if your religious views are all you have - you should not vote in favor of the government interfering.

I have plenty of religious viewpoints that are stricter than the law. What I don't have to do is vote to enforce those viewpoints on others. I simply live by them myself (or try, anyways).