Ann Coulter fun

[Narrock]

And with that... I'm going to bed. To be continued...

[Gidan]

Values are something defined by people not by specific religions. Everyone has their own set of values regardless of what god they beleive in or even if they choose not to beleive in any god.

Religions do preach values that have been set down over time, its still up to the followers of those religions to follow them. People who do not have a religion, may not have a set of values that are presented to them to follow in the same way that religions do. This does not mean that they dont have them.

I consider myself to have high moral values, I did not have them because some religion I follow tells me to have them, I have them because its the way I choose to live my life.

[Yamori]

You support gay rights and gay marriage right? You also support "pro-choice" right? Yeah, who cares that 15 year old are having sex... they can just get an abortion. You also support legalization of marijuana because it's not a "dangerous drug" right? You enjoy the notion of, "If it feels good... do it" don't you? Who do you think is spreading aids? That's right. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and junkies. You've supported the legalization of marijuana if I remember correctly. Marijuana is a dangerous drug, and it also impairs driving and decision making. You support the right to do whatever it is you'd like to, whether or not it's bad for you, or for other people. These are all deistic "values." Not much value to those "values" when you really break them down for what they are, eh?

1) Do Married people have unprotected sex with a variety of strangers? If your beef is with AIDS, you should be for gay marriage as it will reduce infection rates. You're not making any sense here. As far as gay rights go, are you saying that a person who makes choices that MAY (if they have unprotected sex) put themselves at personal risk does not deserve equal rights to everyone else?

2) Marijuana isn't harmless. It hurts the lungs, and I particularly wouldn't recommend it if you're mentally ill or could have a predisposition to mental illness. But illegalizing things that harm only oneself has to be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Whats next, illegalizing fast food because its horrible for you (even though it feels good)? People make poor choices. Deal with it. It's not up to the government to do anything about it unless it directly infringes on another persons' rights. If someone behaves in a way that puts others at risk (driving under the influence), make THAT illegal, not the drug itself.

[Arlos]

Hrm, I had a response, but it looks like the board ate it.

Anyway. Ganzo: Go look at Jefferson's letters to others at the time of the creation of the Constitution. In there he says, specifically, that he felt that his proudest achievement with the Bill of Rights was to create "A wall between church and state, so that they will forever be divided." The other Founding Fathers knew his aims and intent, and gave their approval by ratifying the bill as it stood. Therefore, since we have the direct language of the Bill of rights, we know, absolutely, the intent of the clause on religion, AND we know the other Founding Fathers gave their approval, we know that this is *NOT* intended to be a "Christian" nation. It is merely a Nation that has christians in it, along with any other religion people of the populace choose to follow.

As for Morality...

Mindia, you feel homosexuality is wrong. Guess what: Many other faiths have no such proscription, and indeed, there are large numbers of Christians who do not agree with you. Why then, when we know for a fact the Constitution says that the State should not make laws based on religious faith, should there be laws against homosexual behavior? Do you have ANY other stance against them besides your own skewed religious one?

Alcohol is a dangerous drug, and it also impairs driving and decision making.

Actually, basically all studies done on the relative health threats of pot vs alcohol have shown that pot is far far less harmful to you long-term than drinking is. Also, alcohol is physically addictive and it is possible to overdose and die; neither of which is true about pot. The California Highway Patrol conducted a driver impairment test in the late 80s, where they took a group of drivers, tested them sober, tested them stoned, and tested them drunk, with the expectation that pot would be worst, drinking 2nd worst, sober best of all. This is not what they found, however. All drivers performed significantly worse after drinking alcohol than when sober, as expected. However, a sizeable percentage of the drivers actually performed BETTER on the tests while stoned than when they were sober. (No, I'm not supporting the idea of getting stoned and driving, I am actually all for draconian-level penalties for driving while impaired by ANY substance.) Any way you look at it, drinking and tobacco are VASTLY worse for you than pot is, and both of those are legal, thus there is zero reason for pot to be illegal, except due to prejudice and to protect drug company revenue. (Pot is said to have "no medical value", yet doctors can and do prescribe the active ingredient of pot, THC, in pill form. Drug companies are the biggest lobbyists to keep pot illegal, as they make big money from the pills, as they are patentable, whereas a plant is not.)

Ultimately, in my opinion, every competant adult has the right to choose for themselves what they wish to do to their own bodies, as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone ELSE'S right to do the same, and if any other parties are involved, they are also competant and consenting adults. If you want to smoke cigars, feel free, just do it where you're not inflicting the smoke on anyone else who doesn't completely consent. You want to get drunk? Feel free, just don't drive, because then you could impact other people. Want to get stoned? Same thing as with cigars. If someone wants to have a 20 person orgy? Feel free, just everyone involved has the responsibility to make sure they are disease-free and are using protection, so that no diseases are passed or unwanted babies created. etc. etc. etc. Oh, BTW, check the statistics on AIDS. Last I checked the highest percent of new cases were coming from ordinary hetero sex. (and no, pot smokers are not "junkies")

Explain to me how being tolerant of people's choices is going to help maintain any semblance of a solid and respectable values system.

See, Mindia, that's just the thing. YOUR value system is YOURS. Not mine, not Lyions, not Ganzos, not Donnels, not Martrae's, YOURS. Similarly MY value system is not the same as anyone else's. NO ONE VALUE SYSTEM IS RIGHT FOR EVERYONE. THAT is a concept this country was FOUNDED on, that no one value or religious system would be the "one true way" for the country. This country was founded on the concept of DIVERSITY. You have *NO* right to impose your belief system on me, or anyone of a faith different than you, no more than I have the right to impose mine on you. You disagree with what I believe in? Go right ahead, feel free, I'm not going to come to your house with a gun and force you to smoke pot or celebrate Samhain, etc., nor am I going to try and get legislation enacted to force compliance to my moral and religious beliefs. Likewise, you have *NO* right to attempt to force ME to follow YOURS.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

My point was about Religious apathy, which is exactly what the world needs.

I respect all religions and all peoples views on life. I'm tolerant of peoples choices. But this board is all about conflict and its no coincidence that you think "the other side" are the ones slinging dirt and being intolerant, where as I think you and Martrae and Ganzo and Finawin and Mindia...etc have proved yourself to be FAR more intolerant of people views. Everytime someone manages to refute an argument you go nuts with the personal attacks (Rust).

We aren't the ones causing all the trouble here, Lyion. Stop pretending were the problem.

Hey retard, I'm not christian or religious really at all.

[Ganzo]

If this country is a "Christian" nation, then that is directly against the wishes and intent of the Founding Fathers, and anyone who attempts to further or perpetuate such a state obviously spits upon the Constitution. If you don't give a damn about the Constitution, fine, but don't call yourself an American.

-Arlos

Quote where in constitution it states that

Anyway. Ganzo: Go look at Jefferson's letters to others at the time of the creation of the Constitution. In there he says, specifically, that he felt that his proudest achievement with the Bill of Rights was to create "A wall between church and state, so that they will forever be divided." The other Founding Fathers knew his aims and intent, and gave their approval by ratifying the bill as it stood. Therefore, since we have the direct language of the Bill of rights, we know, absolutely, the intent of the clause on religion, AND we know the other Founding Fathers gave their approval, we know that this is *NOT* intended to be a "Christian" nation. It is merely a Nation that has christians in it, along with any other religion people of the populace choose to follow.

1. Jefferson's leters is not our constitution.

2. "A wall between church and state, so that they will forever be divided." means we will never have head of church be our president at same time; it does not mean our president shall be atheist.


my original question still stands

[Diekan]

I think that the separation of church and state was designed to keep the government of setting an "official religion" that must be followed by all citizens. I do NOT think it was designed to keep religion locked behind the walls of the church and kept as a dirty little secret only to be endulged in on Sunday mornings.

Extreme atheists won't stop till they have successfully and completely removed religion (or let me rephrase) Christianity from all aspects of public life. It's not religion the extreme atheists hate - it's Christianity they loath.

[Rust]

show me example of me being intolerant of atheism

"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

[Ganzo]

I'm G.W. Bush now?

[mappatazee]

1. Jefferson's leters is not our constitution.


HI I CAN'T USE ENGLISH

[Ganzo]

1. Jefferson's leters is not our constitution.


HI I CAN'T USE ENGLISH

Hi i have no argument so i attack grammar

[mappatazee]

It's hard to take anyone seriously who can't communicate effectively.

[Ganzo]

It's hard to take anyone seriously who can't communicate effectively.

It's hard to take anyone seriously who can't coment on the subject.

[Harrison]

His first language isn't english you stupid fuck. Attacking grammar is perfectly fine if they're native to the U.S.

You're just a fucking moron.

[Lyion]

show me example of me being intolerant of atheism

"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

Check your facts again. That was said by his Dad, Rust.

W has been extremely open and pushed for separation of religion and state. Moreso than Clinton.

[Narrock]

Extreme atheists won't stop till they have successfully and completely removed religion (or let me rephrase) Christianity from all aspects of public life. It's not religion the extreme atheists hate - it's Christianity they loath.

I will fight against that until my last breath of life has been exhaled.

[Narrock]

See, Mindia, that's just the thing. YOUR value system is YOURS. Not mine, not Lyions, not Ganzos, not Donnels, not Martrae's, YOURS. Similarly MY value system is not the same as anyone else's. NO ONE VALUE SYSTEM IS RIGHT FOR EVERYONE. THAT is a concept this country was FOUNDED on, that no one value or religious system would be the "one true way" for the country. This country was founded on the concept of DIVERSITY. You have *NO* right to impose your belief system on me, or anyone of a faith different than you, no more than I have the right to impose mine on you. You disagree with what I believe in? Go right ahead, feel free, I'm not going to come to your house with a gun and force you to smoke pot or celebrate Samhain, etc., nor am I going to try and get legislation enacted to force compliance to my moral and religious beliefs. Likewise, you have *NO* right to attempt to force ME to follow YOURS.

Sounds to me like somebody needs to take a refresher course on US Civics / American Government history. You are letting your biases interfere with the reality of our founding fathers' intentions, Arlos.

[Gidan]

The seperation of church and state is ththere to prevent the leaders of the this country from passing lawas that require you to practice a specific religion. We were founded under many principles, 1 being that you were free to warship the religion that you choose and that the government could punish you for that choice.

This extends to some of the laws that are being or trying to be passed today. For example gay marrage. Marrage is a legal binding contract in this country, and now it being pushed that its a binding between a man and a woman. Why? because its a religious beleife that has worked its way into our society and now our laws. This is a direct violation of that seperation, of course when the majority of the people who are passing the laws put there religious views first things like this will pass. Other things are like teaching creationism is schools. It becomes a public instatution, funded by the government teaching a specific religion to the childreen of this country.

[Lyion]

No, you are misrepresenting the simple truth that society regards marriage as a venue for a home and raising kids. Yes, there can be childless couples, but the basis of the legalities and rights of marriage is done for 'families'. No homosexual union will ever create children and form the basis of what we deem 'family' and thus there is no legal requirement for, except to push what many do not care to see into the mainstream. Again , this is SOCIETYS definition of marriage. Being a democracy, if you want this changed, then vote for it. Likewise, if you want polygamy, then put it on a ballot. Equating that with 'civil' rights or not having a separation of church and state is creating a straw man argument.

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with societal mores.

Likewise, for those who consider abortion wrong, that is our choice and belief. It doesnt cross church/state boundaries but merely is our personal belief that an unborn child should be protected.

Neither of these examples is representative of the separation of church/state. Nobody is saying you cant worship or not how you please. These are merely societies principles in action.

[Diekan]

That's another point I've often tried to bring up. The GOP claims to be the champions of the "family unit" yet their actions speak otherwise. Any political party that makes such a claim and does nothing in ways to make it possible for one parent to stay at home to raise the kids is suspect.

I'd go into detail, but a lot of you wouldn't get the point anyway.

[Lyion]

You mean the Republicans cowtow to special interest?

A better thing would be to say our Govt as a whole is in bed with them, Diek. How many Demos voted against the Bankruptcy bill?

They are politicans. They are there to 'sell' their party. The democrats claim they are the party of the middle class, and yet fuck us via taxes. The Reps are in bed with big business, and they give them way too many breaks

[Diekan]

I agree with you, I know what you're saying.

It just pisses me off to listen to Dubya preach on about the evils of homosexual marriage (and how it's an ill to the family unit), only to have a sit down with Bill Gates and discuss the perks of outsourcing over cookies and milk.

And, yes I know that's not how it really happens - I'm being sarcastic.

[Zanchief]

My point was about Religious apathy, which is exactly what the world needs.

I respect all religions and all peoples views on life. I'm tolerant of peoples choices. But this board is all about conflict and its no coincidence that you think "the other side" are the ones slinging dirt and being intolerant, where as I think you and Martrae and Ganzo and Finawin and Mindia...etc have proved yourself to be FAR more intolerant of people views. Everytime someone manages to refute an argument you go nuts with the personal attacks (Rust).

We aren't the ones causing all the trouble here, Lyion. Stop pretending were the problem.

Hey retard, I'm not christian or religious really at all.

You mean you're aren't committing to anything yet still slinging shit from the cheap seats? That's so unlike you.

[Harrison]

I have my own beliefs that don't adhere to a major denomination of any religion.

By "religious" I said I am not because you retards are barely capable of discerning the difference between the two.

[Zanchief]

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with societal mores.

I can't believe that an intelligent person could actually believe that.