Impeach George W. Bush!

[Radar]

For the record, America, like it or not, is a Christian nation, founded on Christian and biblical principles (remember that bit about being "endowed by God with certain inalienable rights?)

Only if you're using a false record.

In the real world, the American government wasn't founded on Christian or Biblican principles. And for the actual record, the phrase is "endowed by their Creator" not God. And the word "creator" doesn't refer to judeo-christian concept of god.

The establishment clause is about establishment of a STATE religion (which is why many of the early settlers left Europe) rather than a total divorce of religion from gov't, commerce, personal interaction etc.

That is absolutely 100% false. The establishment clause was made to keep ALL religion out of government and all government out of religion. It was made to keep them completely and totally separate.

You might not be a Christian or a Republican but you seem to spread some of the same lies of the Religious right. You're either very misinformed, or a liar. I'm not sure which.

[juju]

Originally posted by Radar
You're either very misinformed, or a liar. I'm not sure which.

Why the hell would she lie? Do you think she just gets off on spreading false information?

[Radar]

I don't know. I've seen a lot of people who get pleasure out of spreading lies. Especially those who condone the mixing of church and state and those who would violate the constitution in the name of security.

I personally don't know or care what wolf's reasons are for spreading misinformation. I'm just pointing out that the information is completely and utterly false.

[juju]

Originally posted by Radar
I don't know. I've seen a lot of people who get pleasure out of spreading lies.

...

I personally don't know or care what wolf's reasons are for spreading misinformation.

You should care what her reasons might be for such things. Getting to know people is what the whole spirit of this board is about. Simply not caring about her motivations makes the whole debate completely pointless.

Let me reword this. It's the same thing as I said with option in another thread: If people feel like they're being attacked, it doesn't matter how right you are. They'll just stop listening to you and jump to defend themselves.

Radar isn't here to make friends. He's here to "win fucking arguments".

[Radar]

Simply not caring about her motivations makes the whole debate completely pointless.

I disagree. I don't care about motivations, I care about actions. I don't care why George Bush wants to violate the constitution, why he thinks it's ok to start an illegal and imperialistic war against a non-threatening country, why he attacks our civil rights, or why he makes horrible decisions with regard to our environment, foreign policy, or economy. The point is that he does those things and that is reason enough for me to hate him with every fiber of my being and to hope that he's killed as the traitor he is for the sake of America.

You don't have to care about why someone does something to make a debate worth having. If someone drowns 5 children, I don't care why they did it, I don't care what they were feeling, I don't care about their mental state, etc. I just know they did it and they need to die. If someone is spreading lies, I am curious to know if they are lying or don't know the truth but in the end it doesn't matter. It's their actions, not their reasons that matter.

[Griff]

Fuel for the fire from Washington's Farewell Address.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

[Whit]

     Thanks Griff, that's quite interesting. It's a solid arguement Washington makes as well. Without religion you can't have a "National Morality" because without religion telling you what's right and wrong you have to make that decision individualy. Of course being a non-religious individualist I'm okay with that.

     Hey Radar, motivations matter because that's where changes are made. To use your analagy if we can understand the motivations of one person that drowns five kids then we have a chance to recognize the next such sick individual and stop them before five more kids drown. Also from the point of discussion if you ignore motivation then you're ranting, which is okay. Just don't expect your opinion to spread.

     For instance, you could ask how it is that our right-wing Dwellars fight for all of our rights to bear arms, as per the Constitution, but seem okay with the goeverment taking people and locking them up without legal representation. I can't remember the name of the guy who's lawyer tried to fight this, and failed, because I'm full of flu meds right now. Somebody help me out or I'll look it later when the brain is working better. This is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights, so ask why they can be incensed over one and not the other. Then it's a discussion, the ball is in their court. Not a rant. Difference being, if you have a valid veiwpoint discussing it is how it spreads. A rant just makes likeminded people go "YEAH" and everyone else rolls their eyes and becomes less likely to listen next time.

[Undertoad]

Re Washington, that's what I'd expect someone to say before two centuries of scientific findings made it despicable.

[Griff]

Originally posted by Whit
Thanks Griff, that's quite interesting. It's a solid arguement Washington makes as well. Without religion you can't have a "National Morality" because without religion telling you what's right and wrong you have to make that decision individualy. Of course being a non-religious individualist I'm okay with that.

Thank you Whit. I'm a moderately religious individualist so while I want religion separated from government, I don't want it suppressed. Respecting other peoples private choices, damaging to them or not, is pretty crucial if you want a society of free individuals.

BTW- I vote yes on impeachment.

[Whit]

     Oh come now 'Toad, surely you recognize that to be a good American you must view everything the 'Founding Fathers' said as being akin to the Gospel.

[Whit]

     You're welcome Griff, and I agree completely that suppressing religion IS suppressing freedom of choice. It shouldn't be done, well outside of religions that believe in drowning five kids and such.

     By the by, I dislike GWB but impeachment ain't gonna happen. War on the horizon, post 9/11. Nope, "nah gonna do it, it wouldn't be prudent at this juncture." Seriously, Bush know that 9/11 was the best thing to happen to him, just look at his approval rating before and after if you don't believe me. He's going to run with it as far as he can, and anyone in his way get's called unpatriotic, which is a deathknell for a politician.

[Griff]

Originally posted by Whit
     Oh come now 'Toad, surely you recognize that to be a good American you must view everything the 'Founding Fathers' said as being akin to the Gospel.

Which is why I make copies of everything said here. I'm gonna hold you people to your opinions when the Aloysios Party takes off.

[Griff]

We'd have to impeach them all....

[russotto]

Originally posted by wolf

For the record, America, like it or not, is a Christian nation, founded on Christian and biblical principles (remember that bit about being "endowed by God with certain inalienable rights?). The establishment clause is about establishment of a STATE religion (which is why many of the early settlers left Europe) rather than a total divorce of religion from gov't, commerce, personal interaction etc.

"endowed by their Creator".

The establishment clause is a lot stronger than preventing establishment of a state religion. It prevents any law "respecting" an establishment of religion. Along with the free exercise clause, it pretty much does demand that the government remain secular.