"Saddam and Al-Queda were connected. Ties were discovered and verified."
Do you have a link or evidence to back that up? This would certainly be news to me.
Take care all.
"Saddam and Al-Queda were connected. Ties were discovered and verified."
Do you have a link or evidence to back that up? This would certainly be news to me.
Take care all.
It's hardly "anti-Christian" to suggest that non-Christians should be forced to recite a Christian prayer. 'Separation of church and state' means preventing the state from dictating anyone's religious expression, while allowing every individual to have the freedom to believe and worship as they choose.Originally Posted by Sasquatch
That, I agree, is unnecessarily extreme.to nativity scenes in the town park to "happy holidays" and "seasons greetings" instead of people being allowed to say "Merry Christmas".
Uh, no. The Bush administration, and its vast intelligence network, have agreed and announced that there never was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime. Hussein may well have liked what bin Laden's network was doing, but that's an entirely different matter. Hussein wasn't an Islamic Fundamentalist, so he wasn't exactly a hot ticket as far as Al Qaeda was concerned.(First of all, I don't know how to say it simple enough for y'all to figure it out. Saddam and Al-Queda were connected. Ties were discovered and verified. Saddam, however, did not have anything to do with 9/11, though Al-Queda did. Like the right hand not knowing what the left is doing...he may have known about it, but didn't play a part in it. nik0tine, if you don't believe that, it doesn't make everybody else wrong, it makes you wrong.)
Some Christians believe it's OK for more than two people to get married.The Redneck has valid arguments considering what's recognized as a normal marriage. A couple people have pointed out that a marriage is only a union between two "people", and wouldn't ever move anywhere near a union between more than one person, or a person and a non-person. Not too long ago, a marriage was considered a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. One man, one woman, that's a marriage. It it changing now, to a "union between two people". So who's to say the foundation of marriage won't be turned into even more of a joke by allowing more than two people to get married? That's not too far off from letting two guys get married.
No, you have the absolute freedom of religious belief, guaranteed under domestic and international law. The government, however, can't go around promoting your beliefs or telling everyone else to think like you.LH: "You're free to be as Christian as you want to be in your personal life."
That's right. In my personal life, in my home and car, I can be as much of a Christian as I want to be, as long as nobody else that might get offended has to see, hear, or acknowledge it.
Big D: Since when is the Pledge of Allegience a Christian prayer? If children were being made to say a Hail Mary every morning, I could understand your viewpoint. Plus, the kids don't even have to say it--they can sit down through it, not stand up, not put their hand on their heart, not say anything at all, and as long as they're not being an actual disruption (meaning, if they sit down and shut up), the school can't do anything about it.
Yes, some Christians believe bigomy is alright. But that belief has been booted out of most churches, even the Mormon church. The point is, if society's view of marriage has changed from man-woman to man-man, what's going to keep it from changing to man-woman-woman, or man-child? And if we're offended by it, what's to stop people from saying "too bad, that's their right", just like they're doing with gays?
Al-Queda training camps have been found IN Iraq. Camps/schools to train terrorists on the basics of carrying out attacks against "infidels" have been discovered in Iraq. Iraq, if you remember, used to be run by Saddam Hussein. Saddam - Al-Queda, you asked? And by the way, yes, Saddam definitely IS an Islamic extremist.
If the government is going to "protect" other people from being exposed to my religion, why won't they protect my religion? Seperation of Church and State means that the government cannot establish a specific national religion. It doesn't mean that they can support general religion.
Too many people confuse "freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion".
Sasquatch, give me ONE reason as to why the government should not allow polygomy.
(Of course, if the government were to allow polygomy, people could not get extra benefeits for marrying multiple people. Don't use that argument, because it's bunk.)
No he is not. I don't think Saddam would give two sh*ts about islam.Saddam definitely IS an Islamic extremist.
Ugh... had this sucker all typed out, and my browser decided to take a break....
Big D--
No one's forcing anyone to recite a Christian prayer;anyone who wants can opt out of it, and always has been. What pisses these people off is having to hear a Christian prayer.
The Captain--
How about this? Or this, or this, or this, or this, or here, or this, or this?
Nik0tine--
You was sayin'?That is blatantly false. Anyone who believes Saddam had links to Al Queda is wrong.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I HAVE paid taxes, and I HAVE applied for loans, and no, I don't have to acknowledge who's married. I'm 20 years old, and have lived on my own, so please don't just assume you know me. You're name is oh so befitting, as Shadow Nexus already pointed out.
The GOVERNMENT does, however, have an obligation to uphold the rights of individuals. I don't have to acknowledge the fact that people go to church, and worship Jesus, and call other people insane and dumb just for not doing it or doing the same thing with a different god, but the GOVERNMENT has to acknowledge their right to do so.
I still don't understand your thought pattern, and I honestly think it's just some strange form of masochism.
"The Captain--
How about this? Or this, or this, or this, or this, or here, or this, or this?"
Good sir, you do realize that half of those links are from news stories two years old and have since been discredited by the Government?
Also:
http://www.inthenationalinterest.com...004Leiken.html
The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was not enough evidence to support such a link.
Take care all.
Last edited by The Captain; 03-27-2005 at 04:59 AM.
actually we dont get a choice in rather we say it not.It depends onthe teacher really.IF we get a patriotic bastard we will be forced to say it.I rememebr this one teacher i had the bitch punched me right in the face.School covered it up and lied to my mom.But my mom saw the brushes and we transfered to another school.Plsu im insulted oyu said christains worship mary.When I saw "Hail MAry" I was thinking of that checkers move lol.
But other than that I agree with you completely.People take the seperation from church and state too damn literally.Thatw as put in so religion will be religion and government and politics will be government and politics.That way the two don't mix.But then you have idiots who just come out of nowhere and complain about how they are atheist and the words under god shouldnt be int eh pledge and that schools are a government place.Yes it is government funded thus they found a loop-hole since the amendments aren't that clear on things.
BTW to TheRedneck.A couple can recognize themselves as married thats between the couple and god if they really are married.The government recognizing it is just a thing so they can tax married couples higher.
I dont agree wiht that statement oyu said.Your saying if im a liberal im not a christain yet im a christain.See your mixing politics with religion. I hate people like that they come up to me and say
"your not a christain unless your a conservative republican."
I say "well dela with it im a christain and im a liberal democrat."
plus im black so that all adds up.
Anyway Government policies shouldn't be based on religion morals but common sense morals.I mean heck the Hebrews were good at keeping some aspects of Government and religion seperate.The way you talk is conservative extremism.You attack the ACLU like people say the NAACP is a racist group for focusing on african americans mainly because they are african americans and we shouldnt have a right to look out for our own since its a dog eat dog world out there.Then someone had the nerve to compare it with the KKK saying they are both on same priniciples saying
"the KKK and NAACP both worked fo rhte advancement of there own race."Yeah thats a bit too dumb a statement but watch some guy come in wanting to be a "smart" guy or just some guy wanting to look good infront of everyone here and say that "The KKK is found ont he same principles as the NAACP And the NAACP is the worst racist group out there and they set a double standard."Despite the fact that they never set a standard and yeah they took up for only black rights so what!! Groups have to come together to be recognized and respected but everyone thats not black feels like they are being left out or something or they wouldn't have gone to the extreme of comparing it with the KKK.ooooo yeah *sarcasm*NAACP sure did lynch lots of them whites..*/sarcasm*.I really have to laugh at the people who did that.You know who you are.
I myself am not athiest. (for the record i am not sure what I believe yet.) But I think the words "under god" should be taken out of the pledge. Why? Because they were NEVER IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH! The origional pledge of allegiance did not have "under god" in it. It was added in the 1950's to promote religion among students in an effort to combat communism. This is just simple brainwashing and it's wrong. In my personal opinion the pledge itself should be banned from school, because it is a form of brainwashing. It is no different from Soviet children having to recite a prayer of thanks to comrade stalin every day of school. (unfortunately, i cannot remember the precise verbage of the prayer, nor can i find it on the internet.)complain about how they are atheist and the words under god shouldnt be int eh pledge
School IS a government place. At least, all public schools are.and that schools are a government place.
All public schools yes they are government funded.Thus someone can complain about it im not arguing against none of this. and when i said that some atheist statement.Meaning i was making reference to an actual court case that did happen and was all over the media.
I know you can't read this, but as a graduate of the Cobb County public school system I was personally offended to learn they had allowed these stickers to be put in the biology textbooks. Thankfully I graduated years ago and didn't have to be subjected to this during my time in school. I am embarrassed and the foolishness of the act degrades the value of my diploma.
The Captain -- Even if half of those links are too old for you to think valid (not like that matters anyway), you've still got to consider that half are true. Either way, he's made his point.
lordblazer -- You should get a chance, and the teacher couldn't make you say it. If you don't want to, you don't have to, and there's no punishment the school can give you for it. Plus, I sincerely doubt he punched you, because if he did you would easily be able to have him never get a teaching job again. There would be no "school covered it up"--the school would have no problem with tossing him into the street for punching a kid. Especially with a classroom full of witnesses. Because the next time the teacher punches somebody, and their parents sue, they'll also sue the hell out of the school for not doing anything about the last incident. So I'd put money on no punches.
And I never said that Christians worship Mary. Catholics do (I have a problem with Catholicism). But a "Hail Mary" is a prayer. Ever heard of somebody going to a confession booth (also Catholic) and the priest telling them to say however many Hail Mary's and they'll be forgiven? It's a prayer. ... There's a checkers move called a Hail Mary? The main reference I've heard for it (other than the prayer) is a last-second wishful-thinking pass for the end zone in football.
On to your next post...I never said that liberals can't be Christians. I just said that many liberal stances are non-Christian. Things like, say, abortion, homosexuality, "equal" rights, welfare, etc. It's liberals that have distanced themselves from Christians, not the other way around.
If you want more examples of the differences between liberal viewpoints and Christian viewpoints...you could always look at the case of Ron Harlan, whose course conviction was overturned because the jurors had Bibles in the hotel rooms they were staying in. (That, by the way, was another ACLU case--and people say they're not anti-Christian...) Or, you could look at the liberal judge in Colorado that took a child away from a newly-saved (that means recently converted to Christianity) ex-lesbian woman to give to her ex-girlfriend, then also ruled that the woman couldn't teach her child anything from the Bible that might be construed as "homophobic"... Or even the liberal judge that decided "4/20/99--Jesus Wept" and "God is Love" was "hate speech" and thus deemed inapropriate for a wall of tiles students made for a memorial of the Columbine massacre.
Plus, you of course had to mention that you're black, and immediately after referring to yourself as a Christian, you make the statement, "I hate people like that".
Politicians base their decisions on whatever they believe--whether what they believe comes from a religion or not doesn't make it any more right or wrong. And how were the Hebrews good at keeping government and religion seperate? D'you know Jesus was crucified because claiming He was the Son of God was illegal?
Since you mentioned the NAACP...I got some news for you. You don't have to be white to be racist. The NAACP is much a bunch of racists as the KKK is--not as extreme, no, but that doesn't mean they're not racist. (Could you imagine there being a KKK scholarship or grant given out only to white high school seniors? That wouldn't fly at all. But a NAACP grant meant only for black seniors, that's not racism, that's "equality", right?) I won't say that the NAACP is more racist than the KKK, or that it was founded upon the same principles, because that'd be wrong. The KKK wasn't founded for the advancement of its own race, it was founded to hinder the advancement of other races. There was a time when the NAACP was needed, and it was much needed. But that time has passed, and the NAACP's usefulness with it. There's a difference in "looking out for your own" to try to get everybody a fair share, and "looking out for your own" because "your people" have been "oppressed" for "thousands of years" by "my people" and I need to pay for it now. Equal rights, I'm all for. Affirmative Action, NAACP, that's racist, and it is no more right than the KKK saying we should keep all blacks down "in their places".
And the government recognizing a marriage doesn't just mean they have to pay higher taxes. It means they can claim each other on their insurance, all their benefits, it means they're considered "family", it means a lot more than just more tax money.
Why did you mention comparing the NAACP to the KKK? Why did you even bring up the NAACP? If you're black, you SHOULD dislike them even more than white people do. They're the people that make some people racist against blacks.
The stickers that point out that Evolutionism isn't the only theory make you embarrassed and degrade the value of your diploma? As a graduate of the Cobb County, Georgia school system, your diploma isn't worth much anyway, believe me. Or is it the fight and eventual ruling that the stickers had to be removed and students had to be spoon-fed pseudo-scientific dogma rather than knowing that there are other possibilities that degrades the value of your diploma?
Posting Permissions
