Removal of Gerry Adams and Ian Pasley from the Northern Irish Government. Stick them some Godforsaken island somewhere and let them argue among themselves.
Wait. Isn't that what they're doing already?
Printable View
Removal of Gerry Adams and Ian Pasley from the Northern Irish Government. Stick them some Godforsaken island somewhere and let them argue among themselves.
Wait. Isn't that what they're doing already?
the influence of religion in government is a horrible thing... Its dicriminates and makes people feel lesser and treat others as lessers.
The american gov't has been claiming to not make decisions on these types of things, but since people vote from biases based on them we really have no control, hence the ideal of a wider range of people to vote for into power.
and actually.. lordblazer.. hes basically said that... since marriage is techniquely a religious deal... we know why hes doing what he does, we dont need to pretend, its pretty obvious. IF you ask me all religious ceremonies connected with govt should be banned.
NO MARRIAGE: everyone demoted to nly civil unions. :P <-- ideal
Exactly Alice, you dont need to say "I am going to shoot you" to shoot you. Its implied when they point the gun in your face.
Basically, by taking that, he gathered up all the Christian votes. Same thing in San Francisco, the politcal leader must appease the black and gay votes because they make up such a huge part of San Francisco. If you really think that religion is truly out of the government now and by those votes, then you are so wrong...religion does play a part in the government(and buisnesses, trust me), but we should minimize it. Just like how my High School automatically votes Republican, because they are Christian.(its true, they even ADVOCATE voting for Bush JUST because he is Republican. Its a private school though).
Bush has no right to say anything about marriage in the first place, Civil Unions yea, but marriage? Hell no, thats not up to him but the individual churches out there. He violated seperation of church and state, but no one seemed to care.
I have no qualms with Christians being hateful about gay marriage and gay civil unions. Its entirely in their right to do so even if i dont agree with it. But when you put that in the government, seperation means, seperation of church and state. No buts...unless you are to say the Constitution is invalid.
I do agree that if everyone had a civil union and that was the norm and not marriage itself, it would be the most ideal. But i doubt it will happen anytime soon unfortunetly..
@ Usunda
ROFL XD Russion roulette, that is pure gold. :thumb:
To tell you the truth Bush is a politician.If he gets the christain vote he basicly wins the election since most americans are christains.
Sure oyu got some churches who say vote for htis guy but you also have churches that say "Just go out there nad vote especially you young folk."
I'm just saying we have more issues to worry about than oh christains running hte government. I mean we have a chimp as a president now thats our big issue.
There are problems that are soluable and there are problems that are not. Like it or not, Bush has won another term. Until 2008, he IS our president, and that's the way it's going to be. Unless he makes some monumental screw up, he will remain in power for the rest of his term. We can't do anything about it. I'd say the religion in the government issue is a problem because, as was said, it is A) happening now, and B) is soluable, at least to some degree.Quote:
I mean we have a chimp as a president now thats our big issue.
Gladly. Banning religion is possibly one of the worst things any country can do. It's borderline fascist at best, something that no government that professes liberties should strive for. Relgion isn't all or even mostly bad, by the way. Generally many religions do much good. You simply do not hear about it because the media doesn't report it. If a religion as a whole advocates the death of a certain group, that is when problems arise, but in general people should be permited to worship as they see fit. Just as Christianity doesn't account for the entirety of the population, neither does Atheism. Athiests have no more right to push their ideas on others any more than Christians or Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or any other of the myriad of faiths out there have the right to push their ideals on the government. Simply put, for the most part religion is harmless and easily permissible. If you want to look at it more pragmatically, religion was once called the "opiate of the masses", and indeed such a thing may be true. If God doesn't exist, man would most certainly create him, as goes another saying. Religion is an important, even vital part of many people's lives, and we have no reason to restrict it whatsoever.Quote:
srry not to hurt anybody but i think al religions (srry cant find the right word for it) should be banned not to hurt people or something thats just my opinion i think lots of problems would be solved if that would happen.
pls dont hate but if you dont agree tell me why it shouldnt happen then because i dont see the point of it
Religions on an extremist case i hope you make exceptions to that...religion can be a good thing, but it can also cause bad things as well...i wouldnt say its basically a good thing. I say its just there and alot of people agree with that way of thinking...some interpet it differently and/or take it more far than others whether the original way of thought was suppose to be "this" way or not. Hence why i can see many different religions out there..despite some stemming from the same root.
EDIT: In other words religion can be harmful, and at the same time harmless...i am not saying its good or bad...because its just there.
I dont support the banning of religions, but i do support seperation of church and state for obvious reasons. As long as the religion isnt killing anyone somewhere...i dont really care.
I did mention the extremist cases in my post, I said if it involves killing people or the like it poses a problem. Preemptive legislation is a bad thing though. You can't punish somebody because they just might do something because they happen to be the same faith as somebody else who did something.
Ahh i must have missed it, sorry.
Less constrictions on murder. And other acts of violence.
That would be the first step towards me ruling the world.
1) Politicians have to get a proper training, something like studying or an apprenticeship. I don't know, what it is like in other countries, but here they are allowed do rule the country without any training :screwy: . I think politics are a kind of trade. You can't be a carpenter without a proper training as well as you can't build houses, when you didn't learn in what way this works. Is ruling a country that easy, that you do not have to learn it?
2) Federalism works wrong here. Every single state here is allowed to have its own school system. So when you move from one state to another (since we are a lot smaller than the USA, that's not seldom...), it may be, that you get a subject, you've never heard of. So I would prefer, that at least education is in the hands of the national gouvernment.
3) There should be something like a 'spam filter' according to political speeches. Often nearly 80 % of what 'they' tell is pure polemic. Who cares about the topic? Elections are not won with topics..... :( . And it would be useful to force them to constructivism. We have got two legislative institutions. Important laws has to pass through both. The problem is, that in the first parlament one main party has got the majority, in the second another main party. The consequences are, that whatever one of these instituions does, the other one will refuse to accept it. And nearly nobody cares about what the law is about.
your going too overboard with this.BUSH IS A POLITICIAN THE ONLY PROBLEM IN AMERICA is that people are starting to trust them more and more.Duirng elections champaigne mangers do there research on how to get certaing roups of peoples vote. They split it up and they start making speeches for specific groups.Bush's job as a politician is to lie to these groups and convince them to vote.Meaning by uproaring the christain community with a non political issue.He was able to get a ton of votes.A lot mainly because christain group is one of the biggest in the USA.Really a distrust of politicians is whats needed more in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by lionx
but you know smurf me i know nothing butand crap and dookie and dirt because im just a stupid dumbass idiot who just says stuff just to be saying it.
I never go overboard, i just state what i feel.
Are you saying that elections are not supposed to be run by politicians? >_> And since when do i have any urge to even trust them?
So far it just seems you agree with me, Bush is just trying to appeal to the masses to gather votes which i wasnt surprised of. Its a political tatic and it did its job.
I know :DQuote:
but you know smurf me i know nothing but **** and crap and dookie and dirt because im just a stupid dumbass idiot who just says stuff just to be saying it.
>_>
<_<
*gets sniped*
dammit no thats not what I'm saying.I'm saying as an american we need to stop trusting politicians.ITs healthy to have a distrust of them trust me they are all liars in the end.But yeah in the long run i do agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by lionx
But we are the ones who give politicians power. We live in a democracy, and it is by our votes they gain power. So really we should be more careful of who we vote in.
Trust CNN ...trust CNN..
Lol you just said what i mean >< There should be little reason to trust politicians during the race especially because they want your vote and dont care about the long term things until they are in office...