Excerp: America is not a Christian Nation - Page 6

quote:

---

Christians, acting as 'Civil Rights' advocates, instigated this agenda.

---

ACLU is NON christian...where do you get those ideas?

quote:

---

The inverted cross was originally known as Peter's Cross, as he wished to be crucified upside down, so as to not emulate the Christ in any fashion. This is one reason Satanists have taken over that symbol, so as to not be associated with Christianity in any way. The Peace Symbol was originally known as Nero's Cross, a symbol he used to signify his belief that world peace could be accomplished without Christianity. As with the inverted cross, it's original meanings were subjugated to linguistic and cultural shift over time, and in the case of the Peace Symbol, the 'Hippie Movement' concentrated on the world peace aspect, with no particular religion in charge. What the meaning of that particular symbol intends today is what is important.

---

First and foremost I know how Peter died, he did it that way to avoid being crucified like Christ because he was unworthy.
Secondly, Peter is very much a symbol of the first Christians, he was the highest Bishop, we call the Pope.
Third, did Nero die on the cross for our salvation?
Therefore he has no cross that brought salvation.

IT is hung upside down and BROKEN to signify the breaking away from the cross. Hung upside to show complete disrespect to the cross.

quote:

---

You cry foul at loosing your government and taxpayer-supported religious mottos, monuments, and prayer, and claim persecution without any foundation for that statement.

---

AS you arrogantly proclaim ignorance to what the ACLU is planning, you miss what is being done.
IN fact, now a movement is being made to remove Christmas from the 'Vacation' time schedule of the governemnt workers....

I worked in a bank, and was told I was NOT allowed to say Merry Christmas...only Season's Greetings.

Tell me my rights were not trampled.

BUT DID I listen...NO!
I said what I wanted, it is called the first amendment...freedom of speech.

quote:

---

In my opinion, any religious displays or support have no business whatsoever on government and public property, nor in government and public institutions or schools. None should be displayed at any time, from any religion.

---

Maybe you under the sad impression the government is an entity unto themselves.
Which is how democracies turn into socialisms or communisms.

The goverrnent is for the people, by the people.

ALL laws MUST reflect the majority's needs. Even the minorites have their rights...but since the majority vote, they vote for their IDEALS...and since we saw a landslide the last election and a nation turning to moral values, we can then consider 'FOR THE PEOPLE' MEANS WE WANT THE RELIGIOUS DISPLAYS.

Therefore an elected official who is voted in with such an ideal must hold up the reasonable standards the ppl voted on. MORALS and religion.

Seperation of church and state means ONLY
.....that the government cannot impose who practices what religion.

Historical ignorance is what is destroying our nation...

'ACLU is NON christian...where do you get those ideas?'

The ACLU claims no specific denomination, as an organization and claims nonpartisan policies, but the majority of its members, and its very founders, are Christian. As are those termed 'liberal', which were included in my statement. As we seem to be concentrating on the ACLU, I would suggest you, or anyone else who might be interested; to take a gander at the cases they have participated in. They do in fact support and defend the rights of Christians, where it does not conflict with government secularization. Their number one stated goal is 'Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.'
-------------------------------------
'First and foremost I know how Peter died... Third, did Nero die on the cross for our salvation? Therefore he has no cross that brought salvation.'

You seem a well-read woman, so I had thought you might know. It was added so others who might not be aware would be able to follow that portion of this discussion. Secondly, how Nero died is moot for this debate, what I included was his opinions and reasons for creating that symbol, again, to enlighten those whom may not know.
-------------------------------------
'AS you arrogantly proclaim ignorance to what the ACLU is planning, you miss what is being done. IN fact, now a movement is being made to remove Christmas from the 'Vacation' time schedule of the governemnt workers....'

Who is instigating this 'Movement' and what is your source please? I cannot locate any such agenda on their website, nor have I come across other references to such. I find it difficult to belief that Americas would purposely remove vacation time. I notice you do not make mention of the fact that many Christians do not celebrate Christmas, as it 'has pagan roots', and are urged to do so from within their own Church institutions, and not by government or free speech advocates.

As to being 'arrogantly ignorant', please post quotes from my replies supporting your opinion. I follow the ACLU, and other Civil Rights organizations, closely. I can find references to such suits as the ACLU defending a Boston Church's rights to run 'Anti-Santa' adds on public transit, if that is what you are referring to, and many cases defending religious rights for Christians. As usual, if their agenda doesn't fit Fundie Christian ideals, then the ACLU is termed anti-Christian.

'I worked in a bank, and was told I was NOT allowed to say Merry Christmas...only Season's Greetings... Tell me my rights were not trampled... BUT DID I listen...NO!
I said what I wanted, it is called the first amendment...freedom of speech.'

An Employers property is Private Property after all, and they choose the policies to be followed by their employees, and create the conditions for employment within that business. In such an instance, Free Speech arguably does not apply, and led to your implied termination. The same organization you blast would have been of great help to you in this situation, the ACLU's stated purpose is to defend one's first amendment rights, and have proven so with their track record. I challenge you to find me one alleged 'Anti-Christian' case supported by the ACLU, or any organization, outside of the Separation of Church and State argument.
---------------------------------------
'ALL laws MUST reflect the majority's needs. Even the minorites have their rights... we can then consider 'FOR THE PEOPLE' MEANS WE WANT THE RELIGIOUS DISPLAYS.... Therefore an elected official who is voted in with such an ideal must hold up the reasonable standards the ppl voted on'

Firstly, the majority Did Not Vote on these changes, the American Citizen had no say when religious references where added to our money in 1863, or the replacement of our original motto and the changes to our Pledge in the 1950's. Special Interest groups were at work, applying pressure to key officials, and a Special Interest group by definition is not a majority. And you are desperately mistaken; all laws must reflect EVERYONE'S needs, not just the majority, to support merely the majority leads to tyranny and oppression. Our Founding Fathers attempted to forestall just this kind of occurrence, within the Bill of Rights and later through the amendments. Concerning the last sentence, how can one justify a fundamental change in Constitutional policies as reasonable, particularly when the people did not vote on those changes?
----------------------------
'MORALS and religion. Seperation of church and state means ONLY .....that the government cannot impose who practices what religion. Historical ignorance is what is destroying our nation...'

I totally agree that 'historical ignorance' is indeed destroying our nation, have you read the 'Articles of Confederation', ' The Federalist Papers', or the 'Tripoli Treaty', or any of the mountain of personal letters and papers left by those who created the Constitution? Those documents will certainly illustrate to those who wish the current religious government policies to stand, just exactly how 'historically ignorant' they are. The intentions of a secular government are clearly displayed in the overwhelming evidence of documents that support that policy.

Also, one can indeed have outstanding morals, without the miasma of religion attached. By even merely appearing to support one religion above all others, the government sends a message to non-Christians that basically says 'You are not one of us, you are not welcome here', and that in it self proposes what religion our citizenry is to follow. In other words, it states to be truely patriotic and love our country, one must be Christian.

Concerning religious displays, I have already stated that no one is attempting to dissuade, let alone out-law, such displays on a person's, or Church's, private property. If someone is, then they are in the wrong, and need a very strong lesson on 1st Amendment rights. The agenda of those some incorrectly group under 'Atheists and Communists' is the removal of these items from government property and policy, a very small piece of real estate. The very vehemence that people react with concerning my 'Clear Majority' statement supports my opinion. In my opinion, the multitude of Christian television and radio programs, and Xian Churches, is not enough, prompting Fundamentalists to attempt to impose their religious views and doctrines, and to forward their agenda of forced or otherwise coerced conversion, through our government.

Religion is necessary. I feel this is one of the reasons our country is so strong. Because no one(usually) is forced to believe in anything. We can choose, which gives us freedom.

Regardless of whether religion is a crutch, its needed to keep us in line(those who choose religion). No one has a strict enough moral code to not have a standard to follow. Whats so great is that we get to choose what standard. Although logic and reason do help to fight tyranny and w/e else...we're all people. Religion is not a problem. If anything, religion assists us. Its the bitter hearts who dont agree with christian influences. Its the ones who feel resentment against "god"... or just werent raised to believe in one.

I firmly agree on religious influence. Not a religious basis, but influence. At least we're following a morally sound religion such as christianity.

I dont believe in "logical and reasonable" basis, I believe in its influence. I honestly dont think that any of us posting have what it takes to be someone to make decisions for the better.
Let religion influence our nation, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It just gives us a better code of conduct to follow.

Dont mistake influence, as a sign of the apocalypse.

Whats unfortunate is that we make laws against abortion and homosexuality because of the religion..but in truth, their literal observations. Logic and reason, the two tools you people are so keen on using.

Is it murder? According to christianity, it isnt murder. Its not a human life until it takes its first breathe.

Then why in some states is it illegal? Homosexuality...just doesnt fit. Its a psychological attraction. Physically, its not right. Its niether reasonable or logical. So this is both a religious and reasonable logical influence. Without religion, it would still be logically unfit.

We follow our logical just as much as we do our religious. Neither are a true basis for any decision. This is why we keep a moral standard. (sometimes) to help us make the right decision.


It would be stupid to discard religion as an influence on the grounds of logic and reasoning.

and visa versa.

'I firmly agree on religious influence. Not a religious basis, but influence. At least we're following a morally sound religion such as christianity.'

Just to clarify, are you are suggesting that non-Christians have no morals? That is absurd if you think that way. America was simply founded on Greco-roman democracy, read Article 11 of the 'Tripoli Treaty' for starters. What we are simply trying to do is negate those obvious Christian mottos and prayers added by special interest groups long after this country was founded, and return our government to what was intended. Equality for all people regardless of gender, religion, or race. Some people keep making the mistake, perhaps a true mistake or trying to forward fundamental principles and doctrines, that there is an active attempt to eradicate Christianity from the US all together. This simply is not the case. To remove government supported religion from our government and schools would in no way hinder or destroy Christianity.

It simply cannot, and I challenge you, or anyone else, to point out why this secular agenda would harm Christianity, or this country, in any sense.
--------------------
' Homosexuality...just doesnt fit. Its a psychological attraction. Physically, its not right. Its niether reasonable or logical. So this is both a religious and reasonable logical influence. Without religion, it would still be logically unfit.'

A typical homophobic reaction heard from many religious persons. Same gender couples certainly do not see it as 'not right', or 'neither reasonable or logical'. You would have to give me a much more compelling debate then religious and personal opinion, to make me think otherwise. Gay couple have a right, guaranteed under the Constitution, and please don't try the 'homo's are a recent abomination', they have existed for all of written history, and exist even among our animal brethren. To each his/her own, I say.

Well, if you cant see the logic and reasoning behind why homosexuality isnt "right"..then thats completely absurd.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce. The pieces dont fit(in a manner of speaking). How can it be right, If their train of thought isnt even based on logic and reasoning. Their sexual intuity isnt based on logic and reason. How can it be logical and reasonable?

There are plenty of logical and reasonable explanations as to why it isnt right. I mean sure, to each his own(i guess) but then why bother with government? Freedom? Freedom to what? To each your own as long as its within the confines of the law? That makes sense....

How can throw "what is" (homosexuality) to the wind, especially when your so strongly rooted in removing the illogical and unreasonable from our government.(religion supported by the government...in the government.) Its not a bad thing that religion is supported by the government..in the government. the bad thing is when its enforced. Now, you have no problem standing up against christianty. I believe you stated you'd be one of the first dancing in the street jumping with Joy when the religious influence on our government is completely disavowed(lack of a better word).

So why is it you fight for the same people who are intuitively dominite as those who are strongly religious?

I agree, a government based on religion is immoral. But influenced is completely alright. As long as its equally logically influenced.(or morally). A just government, sounds like a plan.

Why you asked if i was implying something completely irrelevant..i do not know. It was clearly stated that, "'I firmly agree on religious influence. Not a religious basis, but influence. At least we're following a morally sound religion such as christianity.'

I never said, or was implying that other religions were not morally sound. I mentioned "such as christianity", because it just so happens, that thats the religion we've chosen to influence. ( and by we, i mean those who have chosen it. Im not implying every human body on the planet.) our government.


So before you start "jumpin' the gun" and making ridiculous accusations, maybe you should've first ask me what i meant when i said that.


This same argument can be pitted against christians and other religious persons. Why accept intuitivly dominated religious ideals into our government, if we wont accept the intuitivly dominated homosexuals?

One reason may be because its blatantly obvious that homosexuality is purely a mental thing. It has nothing to do with their physical bodies. ( other than their chemical imbalances or synaptic choices ) Religion on the other hand, represents what may be, and what we dont know for certain. The verdict is in, homosexuality is not logical or reasonable. Although religion has a leg to stand on, because its a reference to something not so blatantly obvious.

Religion has been around just as long as homos.

Actually, i think it was Constantine the Great who later adopted Christianity. Rome? defeated Pagans?

Greco-Roman? I'd be interested in when this country was founded on a Greco-Roman democracy. Since Christianity was adopted by Constantine the Great as the state religion of the Roman Empire in 324 A.D.

..do enlighten me.

Heres a fun link.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

'Well, if you cant see the logic and reasoning behind why homosexuality isnt "right"..then thats completely absurd.'

You are still using religious and personal opinion. It is not 'right' for you, but it is right for 'them'. To pre-judge (prejudice) someone because of their personal life style is completely absurd.
---------------------------------
'Its not a bad thing that religion is supported by the government..in the government. the bad thing is when its enforced.'

I beg to differ, as does many Americans, and I reiterate, it was the intentions of our Founding Fathers that no religion be placed above another in this country, and that is exactly what has happened. Concerning enforcing, what exactly would you term Christian prayer in schools and government functions, what exactly would you term Christianity on our currency, and in our Pledge? Passive or aggressive, it is still enforcement. As I said before, that sends the message that you are unpatriotic and unwelcome if you are not a Christian.
---------------------------------
'So why is it you fight for the same people who are intuitively dominite as those who are strongly religious?'

Please explain this statement more fully; your lack of decent sentence structure is confusing at times, and I cannot even begin to make an 'assumption' on this one.
---------------------------------
'I agree, a government based on religion is immoral. But influenced is completely alright. As long as its equally logically influenced.(or morally). A just government, sounds like a plan.'

A 'just government' cannot be 'just', as long as it supports one segment of the society under its care, to the exclusion of others. By supporting one religion, the followers of that religion will always take advantage of people who do not; therefore we witness the persecutions and oppressions against non-Christians in this country, and other people who follow alternant life styles. Also, it is my opinion that by supporting one segment of society, this leads to overcompensation when a racial or religious minority finally asserts itself. Witness Affirmative Action, and the school system of Puyallup, Washington, for examples. In case you are not aware, that school system banned Halloween celebrations in it's school last year, in 'case it would offend modern witches'. There was simply NO complaints lodged by any Wiccans, and it was a spontaneous reaction by that school board. There have not been any such complaints lodged, to the best of my knowledge, anywhere in the country. The children are being punished for their Educators concerns, and both Christian and Wiccan parents were completely surprised by this. These are perfect examples of the 'political correct' overreactions that occur as a direct result of the government supporting one religion, it is an attempt at moral and social balance.

A mother of a child at the school stated: 'They're so worried about being politically correct that we're not allowed to do much of anything.'

'Why you asked if i was implying something completely irrelevant..i do not know...
I never said, or was implying that other religions were not morally sound... So before you start "jumpin' the gun" and making ridiculous accusations, maybe you should've first ask me what i meant when i said that.'

Who is assuming? I stated, 'Just to clarify, are you are suggesting that non-Christians have no morals?' to your statement of 'At least we're following a morally sound religion such as Christianity.' That was a vague statement, and I was requesting clarification, in saying 'Just to clarify...'
---------------------------------
'This same argument can be pitted against christians and other religious persons. Why accept intuitivly dominated religious ideals into our government, if we wont accept the intuitivly dominated homosexuals?'

Again, very vague and confusing, clarify.
---------------------------------
'One reason may be because its blatantly obvious that homosexuality is purely a mental thing... The verdict is in, homosexuality is not logical or reasonable. Although religion has a leg to stand on, because its a reference to something not so blatantly obvious... Religion has been around just as long as homos.'

Whether same gender relationships are logical or not, it is present, and they are merely people with a different life style. People, struggling under many misconceptions and negative propaganda, and are entitled to the 'pursuit of happiness' the same as any other person. It's as simple as that. And no, the 'verdict' is not in, there is no 'gay gene' or differing brain waves. Sometimes it is a case of 'who gets to you first', other people exhibit homosexual tendencies from birth. 1st Nations people have the 'Berdache', people who were born into the opposite gender, giving a spiritual reason for homosexuality. Perhaps the question and reasons for homosexuality would be more appropriate in a new thread. The fact remains, that they are here, and they deserve the same rights and privileges as everyone else.
---------------------------------
'Greco-Roman? I'd be interested in when this country was founded on a Greco-Roman democracy. Since Christianity was adopted by Constantine the Great as the state religion of the Roman Empire in 324 A.D. ..do enlighten me.'

Democracy was developed among the City-States of Greece, and later adopted by Rome, that's a matter of historical fact. What Constantine, and indeed the religious denominations of our fore fathers were is moot. As stated in the 'Tripoli Treaty', Article 11: 'As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...'
Merely the dates of Christian reference additions to our nation alone should be example enough of how the original intentions of our Founders has been cast aside, in light of special interest groups agendas and political pressure.

I still have yet to have anyone try to explain to me how the secularization of government is a direct attack on Christianity.

Your lengthy posts do nothing but waste precious time.
and since you decided to make your "points" tucked nicely behind perfect grammar and lengthy paragraphs...im forced to reply with an unecessarily lengthy post. thanx.

"The same argument"- i was asking, why defend homosexuals. When homosexuality is an intuitive preference.

Just as religion seems to be intuitively prefered. The point i was making is that its foolish to uphold the manner in which homosexuals live, if you dont support religion as a governmental influence.

The government isnt telling you that your evil if your not christian. Actually, i dont even think Christ is mentioned anywhere in any documents of any form having to deal with the government. Its traditional, that ALL religions believe in a higher power. We choose the term God, because its a common american english term for.." The big man", " a greater power."

Our government doesnt strictly support christianity, it does support the idea of a higher power. So there is such thing as a "Just" government. "Just" meaning fair and morally stable.

You are right though, homosexuals do deserve, equal rights as other americans. But since homosexuals have different psychological preferences than most americans, we'd have to attempt to compromise, being given this controversy.

Homosexuals do not want what all people want. Regardless of its just a psychological desire. Criminals dont want what all people want, regardless of a psychological desire. This is why we try to be fair and Just in our government. We dont ban homosexual marriage because its a "christian thing"..but because its a moral concept. How far can a free country bend its policies until they're is no law to abide by?

"You are still using religious and personal opinion. It is not 'right' for you, but it is right for 'them'. To pre-judge (prejudice) someone because of their personal life style is completely absurd."

So because its right for them, are you implying that its "ok"?
If you are, then thats just simply absurd. Honestly...


"These are perfect examples of the 'political correct' overreactions that occur as a direct result of the government supporting one religion, it is an attempt at moral and social balance."

Well first, with your witch example..this would be an abomination to christianty. If our government used religion as a leg to stand on, and thoroughly enforced it, there would be no halloween. They wouldnt worry about offended witches.
You disagree with religious influence? Then why do you disagree with political correctness. We're being more thorough with our "politics" to prove that religion does not run our government. Proving to those who have absolutely no belief, or dont refer to a greater power by the name "God". To show them that our governments decisions are not solely derived from religion. Actually, over-political correctness goes to show that in some cases, religion isnt even taken into account

I agree, political-corectness can be over-done. But its not the result of the attempted balance of religion and politics. Its the attempted balance of justice, morality, and politics.While, keeping our feelings and psychological differences in mind.

You say there can be no Just government. Well that's an opinion... and since everyone has these(opinions) the government cannot make everyone happy, they can only set a stage in which to do so..and they try their best. Unfortunately, some of us have become so Jaded..and feel the need to put our 2cents in. Most commonly those who feel threatened or unfit. Although this is a free country, there are laws to abide by. Religion is supported by our government. Not solely christianity, not solely paganism or cathalicism, but all religion. I think our government has the concept of a "higher power", which is why they choose the word "God" in most cases(pledge, coinage)... but you can tell by the over application of "political correctness" that they dont allow this belief to effect the choices made to better this country.


"I still have yet to have anyone try to explain to me how the secularization of government is a direct attack on Christianity."


Because secularization is not a direct attack. No one said ( at least i didnt ) that secularization was an attack on religion. I stated that religion isnt necessarily a bad influence on the government, and i firmly believe it has a positive influence. It becomes an entirely different story if we were making laws based on the 10commandments...but since we arent, i think our government is doing alright. Why fight to remove religion from our government, when religion isnt even the source of our unjust laws? Do you think a law passed against cloning, homosexuality, or abortion..would be the source of religion alone?


If the government swayed with every minorities psychological beliefs,( homos, christians, cathlics, pagans, secularists.) then there would be no government.

Although they do try to be accomidating.

The attempts by some organizations and people to ban homosexuality, whether within the marriage debate or, according to Pat Robertson 'by death', is still the same thing. You seem to know what homosexuals want, by your statement of 'do not want what all people want'. Please expand on that statement, and the logic of utilizing Biblical Law in the US.
-----------------------------------
'So because its right for them, are you implying that its "ok"? If you are, then thats just simply absurd. Honestly...'

What people choose as a life style is up to them. As long as it harms no one, then yes, it is Ok. Gays enjoy the same kind of intimate relationship that hetero couples enjoy. Their only real source of stress is from persecutions from society. And that is directly from one of my dearest and closest friends, a gay man.
-----------------------------------
"Well first, with your witch example..this would be an abomination to christianty.'

This phrase illustrates my point of the total lack of tolerance within the larger Christian community, which you state yourself is an influence on the government. Witchcraft is simply a ritualistic form of prayer, certainly different than Christian ritualistic mass, but prayer just the same. I person utilizing witchcraft petitions their patron deity, through ritualistic prayer, to affect change within their lives, to heal or protect. Now, how can our government, who supports and forwards the Christian religion, treat everyone equally, if some of the doctrines and practices of other religions are found to be 'an obomination' to the Xian faithful?
-----------------------------------------
'Religion is supported by our government. Not solely christianity, not solely paganism or cathalicism, but all religion.'

By supporting Christianity, the contemporary government simply excludes every single other religion, or non-religion. The argument concerning the usage of the term 'God' is moot, all know which God they refer to. Our Founding legal documents make no mention of any single deity whatsoever. The Founding Fathers intended a secular government, period. They showed great wisdom in choosing to do so, but they did not foresee the political power that some religions and special interest groups would be able to gather.

' Why fight to remove religion from our government, when religion isnt even the source of our unjust laws?'

What religion that has been introduced, all references being added post-founding, is a foothold for Fundamentalists. I would hope, and would like to think, that you would not like to see a person like Pat Robertson in control. Starting with the introduction in the mid-19th century of religion into the government, instigated by a special interest group led by Rev. Watkins, additional references and support have been added, and have snowballed as more political power is gathered. As the power of Fundamentalists grow, our civil liberties will fade, yours included. The temperance Movement is a perfect example of how religion and other special interest groups can affect government.
-----------------------------------------
'If the government swayed with every minorities psychological beliefs,( homos, christians, cathlics, pagans, secularists.) then there would be no government.'

The original Constitution, and succeeding Amendments, guaranteed the same rights for all, including those you state above, and the government worked quite well without the need for religious references. The government has already swayed to 'minorities', where else do you think forced busing and affirmative action originated.

Again, these religious references, and present laws based on Biblical Law, are the direct actions of Christian Fundamentals, led today by the afore mentioned Pat Robertson and his 'Christian Coalition', who not only ran for the presidency, but stated: 'There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.' These are the people we strive against, not Christians per say. And as long as they maintain a 'Clear Majority' within our government, by the inclusion of religious references, then no one is safe, and equality for all will never be truly realized.

I have a trojan on my computer that im trying to get rid of, so i'll reply more later.


Pagan, your excessive irrelevants is truly unbecoming.

First statement made in reply to my conclusion on your "witch" example: our governments "political-correctness" as a failed attempt to juggle religion and politics, was wrong. That example showed that the government "clearly" does not "forward" christianity or incorporate it in any laws.

So you saying;
"how can our government, who supports and forwards the Christian religion, treat everyone equally"..can be omitted.

The government supports all morally sound religion in the best interest of others. And the statement you made about the word "God" in our government's use, as being "moot"..is irrelevant.

Nowhere does it say that the word God refers to christianity..as i said before, nowhere in any former or present government documents does it mention "Christ" or "Christian" as the intended or direct influence of our government and its laws. The term God represents the level of freedom in our nation. The wide variety of religion and beliefs allowed by our government. The government has never made a decision or created a law based solely or even influenced by biblical law. Our government does not utilize biblical law, it does not incorporate biblical law. This is why there is no problem with our governments utilization in biblical law. There is no logical reason as to why, anyone would incorporate "Biblical law". Which is probably why our government doesnt do so.

The government has swayed to minorites in our best interest, not solely because they had specificied psychological beliefs,...which was my point.


Your absolutely right, homosexuality does not impose on any ones rights. It wouldnt suprise me if gays later allowed to marry.

When i said homos "dont want what we want", i mean they dont have the same psychological preferences as heterosexuals...obviously. The logical reasoning and proof behind "why it may be wrong", is because (once again), homosexuals cannot reproduce. As with heterosexuals, reproduction may not always be guarenteed, but the chances are exceedingly higher.

My point is that religion is not a bad thing. Just as you believe homosexuality is not a bad thing. Religion influences, because religion is a large part of life. Its a good thing no decisions are made from religion alone, or that decisions are even influenced by religion. Nothing our government bans is because of religion. No laws our government makes are the source or cause of any religion.(unless its for our best interests)

Including the minorities..such as your wicca example.




anything i missed..i guess i'll reply later. I gotta get rid of this damn trojan...

Good luck with your Trojan, they can be hard to be rid of. Putting on my 'game face' again...

Concerning my 'irrelevants' – That statement cannot by 'omitted', it is the basis of this whole argument. I have noticed the way some quickly discount that argument, when it is their opinions that are being discussed. It can be termed hypocritical to demand the government not interfere in Churches, but then for Churches to demand exclusion from taxation, and to interfere in the very same governing body they want protection from.

Any governing body cannot govern fairly and with equality, if that governing body forwards and supports only one segment of society over others. To have true 'Justice' in any country, all segments of society must have equal status. This does not mean to say that all minorities must be 'coddled', but that no one should be placed above the other. And 'under God' is in fact supporting Christianity. It was Christians who instigated its addition, as well as all of the Xian references. To say that does not refer directly to your God is, as you like to say, absurd.

So what is your main worry?
Do you feel our government favors Christianity above all religions? Does this effect their decisions?

I cant see any laws created with a basis, of "utilization of biblical laws."

Even if christians did "instigate" the addition "Under God"...is that to say it refers only to the Christian "God"?

Why would a government so strongly driven by equality and morality..."impose" one religion over the other?

If our government was indeed favoring and forwarding christianity over other religion, im almost certain there would be more evidence then, "In God we Trust", or "under God".

Like i said, these terms are not definite. Its a general phrase to express the extent of freedom we have in this country.
I beleive it was you who stated God was only mentioned twice in some gov. document. So should we remove this symbolic phrase, although a very small part and not a direct influence for any decisions made by our government?

Only because some feel it infringes on our rights, because we feel we're under a "theocracy" as angelfire stated?
Or because we believe it's a negative influence on our government, if it even is an influence.

Im really having trouble understanding where religion was lost in the founding of this country. How it jumped from direct governmental influence of both Greece and Roman democracy, and has apparently been re-instituted(somewhat) today? Please shine some light on this subject.


and because the government does not favor christianity over any other religion, it does not exclude any other religion or "non-religion".

And if it did infact "favor" christianity, they wouldnt allow it to get in the way of any moral and just decisions for this country. As they have so far demonstrated.