Radorth

Re Buffman

And the hearts of all the "fundies" who voted for Jefferson, as I would have. Buffman, you may think some of us don't care about freedom of conscience just because we argue your revisionist history lessons. You may think few of us care about the means used by other "fundies" but I seriously doubt there is a Christan here who would not fight for your right to believe any nonsense you want.

I voted for Clinton and would do it again, because he was the lesser of two bad choices. The fact is Powell could run as a Libertarian candidate and win I think, because most Christians are not the simple-minded reactionaries you imagine. The majority of "fundies" voted for Jefferson did they not?

I don't think Bush won. I think Gore lost. That is the saddest thing about America, the choice of candidates.

Were it not for the "deist" founders (I'm being generous), we would not be able to freely preach the Gospel as we read it. The irony kills me, but their contributions are well appreciated by me. Does it ever it occur to you that a lot of "fundies" might have a love of individual liberty equal to your own? Can you see why a Christian on this forum might worry when all he hears is shouting about how Christians have ruined the world, and might want to present some evidence to the contrary?

I'm perfectly happy certain firemen don't have to go to church if they don't want to and I'm happy the kids get to pray together in school. If you're happy too, then we have no problem, at least on this issue, right?

Rad

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Buffman

Radorth

I agree completely. However, I do not agree with inaccurate quotes presented by anyone...theist, non-theist, Vulcan.

Radorth

Ashcroft doesn't scare me as much as the Pasadena cops, and these local yokel politians who allow your driver's license to be suspended if you don't pay your dog license on time. I don't see how a self-respecting conservative would abide such nonsense but I suppose they do, and I don't see any liberals complaining about this internal rot either.

The only people I worry about taking over the country are chicken *&%# bureaucrats and an alarming number of narrow-minded legalists and lawyers who want to pass another 80,000,000 laws against what they decide is a sin. The country rots from the inside out because of them. Because of them, 100,000 kids in L.A County don't get adopted and will one day be turned loose, unparented, on the streets. Because of them, my friend gets beat up by six cops, and there was absolutely nothing he could do. Even the ACLU discouraged him, after I encouraged him to try calling them.

It's enough to make me vote Libertarian, and I'm sorely tempted I'll tell you.

Rad

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Michigan Heretic

Well, we do have freedom of religion in this country. But freedom from religion? Out of the question!

Well...that is how the average American thinks anyway.

I've come to a simple conclusion...since I am in the minority of atheism, I have to sit back while others engage in government and public relation. I have a right to my thought, but I don't have that right in the eyes of the law. Since this is a Christian nation, I must observe all Christian rituals, and support them with my tax money.

I was being sarcastic, but the sad part is that the above is, for the most part, true.

Michigan Heretic

Not to butt in...

First off, when Jefferson was elected in, there was a big uproar by the religious communities, who saw him as an atheist. Even one preacher claimed rape would be rampant in the country if he was elected!

Second, I do not rely on "revisionist" history, I'll leave that to people like you, who can't see anything past 1950.

Third...how many Americans supported Michael Newdow?

Fourth...I do not believe in nonsense. I see you enjoy pestering others, because you are a bully like the majority of your kind. I do think out what I believe in, while taking joy in breaking down the "nonsense" you believe in, because you can't bother to think about it.

No, they didn't. A big majority of 10% attended church in his day, compared to 50% today. Apparently, the Americans of the days of Jefferson really believe in the concepts of The Constitution, and decided to leave religion a personal matter between themselves and family.

OK, that makes no sense...

No, that is exact. The founders who made the most contributions were deist, and were guided by Greek and English philosophy.

Like most, they are selfish, and only care about their individual freedom to push me around.

The evidence speaks for itself. Christianity has had an influence on the world, but it's not all in the positive.

Slavery, war, the Holocaust, abused children, capital punishment....all Christianity. Others have to suffer because of morons in large groups banding together to do so.

Now piss off



{edited by Toto to fix tags to set off Rad from MH}

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Grad Student Humanist

It's frustrating and sad but it is also most definitely true. As an atheist my views are never represented in government, and god help me if I wanted to run for public office. The only way an atheist could be elected would be to lie about his atheism. If he were upfront about it
you can count on his opponent making it the cornerstone of his campaign and the negative ads defaming atheism would be running 24/7 (along with plenty of shots of the opponent going to church with a Bible under his arm). I don't think anyone openly professing his atheism (not to mention advocating a secularization of society) could garner more than 5% of the vote in a statewide or nationwide election; and while the chances improve in a local election I still think winning is out of the question.

Is this unfair? Yes.
Can we do anything about this? No.

Buffman

I'm glad that Jesse Ventura had a different attitude.

Grad Student Humanist

Oh really? Jesse Ventura did not campaign as an atheist. Judging by the reaction he got when he finally admitted it he would have never won had he campaigned as an atheist. And Ventura never made atheism or secularism an issue at all during his administration.

I don't know why you keep insisting that this country isn't blindly religious. Pretending that there's really some kind of vast atheist minority in this country is silly. There isn't. Even those that are marginally religious would never come out as atheists and have no problem with what the Xtian right is doing. They go right along with the program and vote for them anyway. Of course it's their right to ignore me as an atheist because this is a democracy and they can vote for whoever they want. Unfair, but not illegal or immoral.

Even in a state like New York or California, a candidate who boldly proclaimed himself an atheist would not win. And in the South or Midwest it wouldn't even be a contest. Here in Mississippi, a week before the election, the local paper ran a story on the two candidates for the US House of Reps in this district. The headline: "Two Conservatives Face Off." Even the Democrats here are conservative (and the Dem still lost his seat). This country is trending conservative again, just like it did in '94 as a reaction to Clinton overstepping his bounds and pushing too many liberal issues (only this time there's nobody in the White House to stop their legislative push).

Aerion

The bad side to having a two-party system of government is that each party tends to take the polar opposite of each other. In our country, the Republicans stand for small government, lower taxes, pro-business, right to life and belief in God. The Democrates stand for the opposite of these issues.

The sad part is, I believe in small government, lower taxes, pro-business (business creates jobs) and fiscal responsibility. But I also believe in right to choose and freedom of (or from) religion. Makes for some hard choices.

Separation of Church and State is in our Constitution and isn't going anywhere. If the Fundies want to keep pouring money into the Republican party then so be it but it isn't getting them anywhere on that front. No Supreme Court Justice can rule against a Constitutional Amendment.

A Woman's right to choose an abortion is on much shakier ground. It was the Supreme Court that made this law and the Supreme Court can change it.

The good news is that I'm not so sure that most Republican politians don't belief in Pro-choice or Freedom of/from Religion. I think they just have to pay hommage to the Fundies to get their continued support for the Republican party. At least I've never seen any real attempt at any legislation to really impact those issues. It's easy to stand up and praise God then pass the collection plate while you're campaigning You don't even have to promise anything concrete to win votes.

In other words, ignore the rethoric and pay attention to legistation.

Splat

WTF??? Except in my wettest of dreams, what democrat has ever stood against belief in god?

The Constitution actually says precious little about CS-separation:

Separation as we know it lives in the way this has been interpreted, especially in the past few decades.

Do you really think that a theistically motivated and activist Supreme Court couldn't interpret these few words in a way that would allow massive expansion of the role of religion in government? Especially if they're willing to ignore the precedents that have gotten us where we are now? In short, if the court were stocked with people like a <a href="http://www.au.org/mcconnell.htm" target="_blank">certain appelate court nominee</a> who's already having himself measured for Supreme robes? And even if they ultimately fail to turn the US into a theocracy, they can do a lot of long-term damage in the effort.

I appreciate that you're trying to reconcile your own political beliefs with a republican party that's made a Faustian bargain with the religious right, and how frustrating that must be. But that's a dangerous blind eye you're turning there, Polyanna.

I'm sticking with the safer assumption that these people are a bunch of fucking psychopaths who should be opposed at every turn.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Splat ]</p>