Printable View
Meh, I begrudgingly say that you've got a point there...... :damn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
Afterall, I should have learned that lesson well from Fable.
EDIT: Who in the hell had a problem with my new old sig? First, everyone went apeshit over the cat-punching sig a few months ago. Now, everybody has a problem with an Evil Dead still. Pardon my Spankrish, but has teh sux phacter gun up cins I'z bin gun phrum teh phoroms? I'm leaning towards yes....... :nod:
That is the best sig I've seen in at least 3 hours. :wacko:Quote:
Originally Posted by reagan80
I'd have no problem with Bush being openly religious... If he believed in all religions equally. You don't think having Christian fundamentalist president who's going to war against terrorism in the middle east puts any pressure on, say... Muslims in the US? Really. I'm 16 years old, and still I've studied history enough to clearly see that church and state should be separated at all times.
There is a problem with what people deem "separation of Church and State". People forget who founded the United States, pilgrims, who fled England from religious tyranny. They did not want to be a part of the Church of England anymore, living to it's moral code. So they moved here. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they took this into account. They did not want a theocracy. Which was what england was at the time, the king being the head of the church of england. They wanted to be able to practice their own religions without being forced to practice a state 'sponsored' one. That is where separation of church and state comes from. Not because they didn't want input from religion.
However, I think it is good that religion does not play a major role in politics because then you do get 'true believers*' that can't get over their righteousness and expect everyone to believe the same things they do. I just don't see that in this or any administration. It is ridiculous to say that any president (at least recent president) has acted solely on his religious beliefs and forced his ways upon the rest of the world because he is a religious man.
It isn't a matter of being against homosexuals, it is a matter of what the definition of marriage is. To a lot of people (in the US and around the world), marriage is not only seen as a bond between a man and a woman, or a man and woman and God (depending on religious view). Also, a lot of people think that marriage is used to create a family, which can't happen naturally, (unless you adopt) in a homosexual relationship. This is probably why people in the US and other areas are still against it. I agree with Reagan80, if the majority was for it, I would tolerate it.Quote:
Then please tell me why one would have a problem with gay marriage other than being against homosexuals?
* "True Believer" by Eric Hoffer, read up on it if you get a chance, it talks about what motivates theological fanatics.
Yeah, they left for freedom, then enslaved people, funny that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusikFreak00
What about Jamestown the First Colony (1607), that was founed to make money... It's founding did not having anything to do with the church... why do people forget that...Half of the people that came to america were not doing so for Religious reasions... and they fully suported Seperation of Church and state, as it what made England such an bad place to live at the time.
Oh that makes since... it we dont want them to get married, because that's not what we define marriage as, So where is the problem with Civil Unions? That are not called Marriage, but give them equal treatment under the law as Married people.Quote:
Originally Posted by MusikFreak00
I don't know about the situation of un/employment of soldiers, troopers, etc. however I do know that the instability that is in Iraq today is because of US intervention. The Iraqis don't want them there. Atleast the majority of them, cosisting of the poor, lower middle class common man, whose opinion doesn't matter anyway. Everyday the death toll is easily above 50 for both the Iraqis and the Americans. This rising instability in Iraq can only be settled of the US leaves.
Bush, because Kerry can't make a stand without standing against it.
Oh sure, we'lkl pull out. Then we will leave Iraq in a civil war that will cost tens-of-thousands of lives and they'll blame it all on us. And then Iraq will hate us even more than they did when Saddam was in power only this time it won't be the lies of a dictator that spurs them on it will be pure facts that make them hate us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
You sure do live in your little bubble, don't you? "We'll leave Iraq in a civil war...dahdahdah...Oh! and they'll hate us for it!" What do you expect, thankyou notes and invites to fancy parties?Quote:
Originally posted by Paladin Hammer
Oh sure, we'lkl pull out. Then we will leave Iraq in a civil war that will cost tens-of-thousands of lives and they'll blame it all on us. And then Iraq will hate us even more than they did when Saddam was in power only this time it won't be the lies of a dictator that spurs them on it will be pure facts that make them hate us.
If you leave Iraq in a civil war situation, it's your goddamn fault! Bush is a daft prick if he thought it's going to be a ride with Barney and his friends in La-La land when he first bombed Iraq on 13th April. You were meant to stabilize Iraq and leave ages ago...what is he waiting for? Another barrel of oil?
Where was all this kindness Uncle Sam is showing now, when all the world was begging at America's knees to fight Iraq when Saddam was committing genocide against the Kurds and the Shi'as?
Bush is increasingly making America a global hate-target, but instead of realizing that and doing something about it, he's expecting kudos and praises for doing what he is.
Saddam lies about how bad America is, Bush proves he's right! He's got a way to correct it...leaving Iraq. Do you know how the common man of Iraq feels? He doesn't care! He's being opressed the same way he was under Saddam.
Does America even care to find out whether Iraq can govern itself or not? Let it atleast function as an independant country if you really mean democracy.
Right, not all people that came here first were because of religious freedom. Saying that would be stereotyping. What my point was is the definition of 'Separation of Church and State' is a different definition now that what it was when this country was founded. And like I said, I don't think our definition is bad, I just think it's ridiculous when someone pulls the separation of Church and State card whenever a leader (president, senator, representative, teacher, federal employee, judge, etc.) makes a comment about God. What's so offensive about it? It's not like just because the president's christian that he's only gonna take advice from the pope or other leaders of the Christian religion. If he did, abortions would be outlawed, there would be no death penalty, and no anything else that christianity is against.Quote:
What about Jamestown the First Colony (1607), that was founed to make money... It's founding did not having anything to do with the church... why do people forget that...Half of the people that came to america were not doing so for Religious reasions... and they fully suported Seperation of Church and state, as it what made England such an bad place to live at the time.
I agree, I didn't say that I am against having gay marriage, I gave you the argument that a lot of people have in their minds. It's still Taboo to people who think marriage is a union between a man and a woman only. And that may never change. Civil Unions/gay marriage would not bother me at all. But I am not gonna actively go out and seek to legalize it. I just don't feel that strongly about it.Quote:
Oh that makes since... it we dont want them to get married, because that's not what we define marriage as, So where is the problem with Civil Unions? That are not called Marriage, but give them equal treatment under the law as Married people.
I should clarify then, that when I say marriage, I don't care what it's called. It's still the same thing. They can call it civil union if they wanna, it doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by MusikFreak00
But one can't try and deny someone rights in a state because of their religious views of marriage. Marriage is much more than the bond between man and woman in the Christian faith. The fact that it has significance in our politics, demands that it must NOT be treated as it would solely in the religion.
That being said, I know a lot of people who are not christian and/or religious that don't agree with homosexual unions. Like I said, it's a matter of view, and not always to do with religion.Quote:
But one can't try and deny someone rights in a state because of their religious views of marriage. Marriage is much more than the bond between man and woman in the Christian faith. The fact that it has significance in our politics, demands that it must NOT be treated as it would solely in the religion.
ugh... normally I"m up for a good debate, but i remember arguing in this same thread maybe 5 months ago, nah, I'll just say I'd vote kerry and leave it at that
Damn...the joy of a Karragh post wasted on not debating...:P
yep, It's a tragedy it is, i did post a rather lengthy arguement over in the cheerleading thread if you wanted to read that though :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn