quote Originally posted by Formula88: Actually, it IS historical. I was a witness to those events and they are germain to the discussion of rights being unequally applied in the past. My comment assumes nothing. I simply states what happened. But if it will make you happy, I'll go free all my slaves.

but will you give them 40 acres and a mule??
or any other form of makeup or payment for being slaves

BTW this country was NOT founded on christian ideas
that is just another big lie the christians tell

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at. I think a secular government is a good idea. I'm not a fan of anarchy or theocracies.

I'm trying to say that a certain very vocal minority would rather destroy this governmental system in their quest to christianize it than let it stay the way it was meant to be, secular, not respecting any religion in particular and therefor granting all religions equal freedom to exist and thrive.

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by ray b: but will you give them 40 acres and a mule?? or any other form of makeup or payment for being slaves BTW this country was NOT founded on christian ideas that is just another big lie the christians tell

Absolutely. Every single slave I have ever owned will get 40 acres of land and a mule, and a personal apology for all the years of slavery that I have subjected them to.

quote Originally posted by ray b: and just who wants a "nanny state" by their actions it sure looks to me to be the rightwing and the thumper christians who do that the ones who scream about a tit on TV the same ones who want laws to control the actions of people , that are none of the goverments biz who want to bann abortion, censor books, movies and even music denigh gays the right to marry, or adopt kids so just who is pushing a "nanny state"

Not me.

quote Originally posted by Unrivaled: Republicans tend to raid the treasury to give to the rich at the expense of those most in need.

The money in the treasury is the rich people's money. The Republicans are just taking less of it than the Democrats do.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: That is the whole problem right there. "We have already started down the Christian path as a nation and our laws reflect that to date." The laws are not supposed to reflect any particular religion. But they have for a long time, so when people try to finally make the laws do what they've always supposed to do, the Christians are offended.

That is the whole problem right there. "We have already started down the Majorities path as a nation and our laws reflect that to date." The laws are not supposed to reflect any particular religion. But they have for a long time, so when people try to finally make the laws do what they've always supposed to do, the Majority is offended.

You ever tried to see it ^ that way? Please don't misunderstand me. I don't want to see our government using the bible for a set of laws but rather a good guide line to make laws by that effects the majority of folks in this country. Same with other countries and their religious majorities.

You make good points and raise good questions from the logical view point but its not a logical view point the majority comes from. That is what I'm getting at. This country is fast changing and laws need to change to reflect that. I want to see this change reflect the majority of folks NOT the minority.

Extremism in any case of this matter is not good. Following the minority reflects an extreme movement to me and I had rather not take that path even if it is more correct till all can get onboard. This keeps the country together better and that is what America is "The United States." To me its not a religious issue or a right or wrong issue its a majority issue a "Togetherness Thing". Thats just how I feel about it.

I'm not trying to argue the issue or change your ideas just presenting a point from my view.

quote Originally posted by Butter: You ever tried to see it ^ that way? Please don't misunderstand me. I don't want to see our government using the bible for a set of laws but rather a good guide line to make laws by that effects the majority of folks in this country. Same with other countries and their religious majorities. You make good points and raise good questions from the logical view point but its not a logical view point the majority comes from. That is what I'm getting at. This country is fast changing and laws need to change to reflect that. I want to see this change reflect the majority of folks NOT the minority. Extremism in any case of this matter is not good. Following the minority reflects an extreme movement to me and I had rather not take that path even if it is more correct till all can get onboard. This keeps the country together better and that is what America is "The United States." To me its not a religious issue or a right or wrong issue its a majority issue a "Togetherness Thing". Thats just how I feel about it. I'm not trying to argue the issue or change your ideas just presenting a point from my view.

Why do we need the Bible as a guildline to set laws for this country? As far as I know, most atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Wiccian, etc think it is wrong to murder, rape, rob, assault, steal, or cheat other people.

I also think we need to follow the majority when making laws. But when the majority's opinion starts intruding into the minority's rights, or when the majoritiy's opinion is going against the Constitution, then I don't think the majority should get its way. That is why we are a Republic, not a Democracy. And in the case when the majority and the minority can't agree, then we need to look for a common ground or drop the whole thing. So in the case of the "under God" in the Pledge, the common ground would be to either drop the "under God" and make the Pledge neutral as far as religion goes, or drop the Pledge entirely from any official or semi-official use.

I don't see how removing "under God" from the Pledge is extremist. The 1st Amendment says that Congress may not pass any law respecting an establishment of religion. Congress passed a law saying "under God" is required when saying the Pledge. How does that not respect an establishment of a religion or at least respecting only mono-deist religions?

Logically we probally don't at this point in our history. We all want to prosper and if the bible is followed (not to extreme) it is a proven guide to prosper.

Then there is the division problem your gonna have. When the majority of Americans are of some christian religion and then you get some lone atheist to dictate how these folks can and can't practice it you get the division that is taking place right NOW. Remember Columbus and why they left for this country!!

Believe it or not I agree with you on most points you make. I just don't believe the path of "we're gonna shove this politically correct down all yall's throat" is the right way to go about change.

On the same order-- Circle track racing is controled by flags. There is no need for anyone to say "Gentlemen start your engines" or "Ladies and gentlemen start your engines" or some lone idiot to argue over which should come first Ladies or Gentlemen. By tradition I want to hear the phrase as it needs to be applied.

There no need to start a football game with a prayer that no one gets hurt. By tradition I want to hear the prayer as it needs to be applied. I wouldn't want to hear a Jewish prayer at a Muslim socker game but if it were Jews playing Muslims I'd want to hear the prayers as they need to be applied. And hey it wouldn't bother me to attend an athiest game and not hear a prayer. "...as it needs to be applied."

There is no need to start the school day by reciting a pledge to the country that afforded you the public education you are about to receive. By tradition I want to hear the phrase as it needs to be applied.

No child is forced to say or stand for the Pledge, nor to say it in its' entirety. I don't understand the big deal.

Jen

quote Originally posted by Fierochic88: No child is forced to say or stand for the Pledge, nor to say it in its' entirety. I don't understand the big deal. Jen

Jen, as a teacher you must be aware of peer pressure. The issue becomes whether or not an elementary school age child fully understands that they do have that choice. When the teacher tells everyone to stand up to recite the pledge, and they are taught how to say the pledge does the child really believe they can look at the teacher and say, "No, I don't want to say that." without any fear of repricussion?

That was one of the main concerns the court faced when making their decision.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: I don't see how removing "under God" from the Pledge is extremist. The 1st Amendment says that Congress may not pass any law respecting an establishment of religion. Congress passed a law saying "under God" is required when saying the Pledge. How does that not respect an establishment of a religion or at least respecting only mono-deist religions?

You cant get much more concise and to the point that that which is why is the reason it was found unconstitutuional. So let's revisit civics 101. The constitution clearly states that congress shall pass no laws respecting an established religion, yet they did and now 51 years later it has been found unconstitutional. This is clearly a black and white ruling with no shades of gray. IMO