Yes, the totality of Congress and the President never make general theistic statements devoid of any particular religious significance.
Without any significane does not imply it does not endorse "religion."
It simply does not endorse one specific religion. (With regards to specificity, it would be in the scope of the monotheistic religions.)
They never do this, obv, because they aren't unduly shackled by the nonsensical conception of what a seperation of Church and State actually means.
Of course. And I see no problem to restrict the government - a body mostly used to tell people how to live - to never mention religion. Since that has absolutely nothing to do with ruling over people.
I'm glad we didn't have this little talk.
Your trite and pithy excuses for humor make me sick. I even wrote a haiku about it.
Your face makes me sick.
When I see you, I vomit.
Die away from me.
Without any significane does not imply it does not endorse "religion."
It simply does not endorse one specific religion. (With regards to specificity, it would be in the scope of the monotheistic religions.)
But religion is practice. What practice does it endorse?
Of course. And I see no problem to restrict the government - a body mostly used to tell people how to live - to never mention religion. Since that has absolutely nothing to do with ruling over people.
I think you underestimate the power of religion, misunderstand the point of religion, and disregard the benefits of religion.
Of course you're not being serious, so here's a quote from The West Wing that I like:
"...there's nothing wrong with a religion whose laws say a man's got to wear a beard or cover his head or wear a collar. It's when violation of these laws become a crime against the state and not your parents that we're talking about lack of choice."
Though different in context, it is this sort of thing that should be considered when throwing around accusations of establishing a religion. If abstract sin becomes a federal offense, then yes, it might be time to start paying attention to what's going on. If the police fine you for not Honoring the Lord, thy God, then conceivably a case could be made that a state religion has, in fact, been established.
But let us drop this childish notion that a government can not mention one of the most vital aspects of the majority of its citizens' lives simply because There Could Be Trouble. The government really does have to consider religion when making its decisions, and really must be able to discuss this freely.
Your trite and pithy excuses for humor make me sick. I even wrote a haiku about it.
Your face makes me sick.
When I see you, I vomit.
Die away from me.
Your nauseating, wretched excuse for poetry boils my blood. That I, who have read Dryden, should have to put up with a terrible imitation of a poetic form that isn't really all that great in the first place is a new level of infamy, and it comes as no surprise that it is you, Denver, who hath wrought it. I even wrote a verse epistle in imitation of Wordsworth about it.
I wonder now at you, thou proud
And scornful son of turpitude,
Who hath through Asian verse allow'd
A mocking message, base and rude,
To dance upon the Internet
And other hateful rhymes beget.
What then, O bastard? Aye, what then?
A thousand sins could cleave a path
Throughout th'electric world of men
(So far untouch'd by Satan's wrath;
Where virtue shines in every code,
And vice nor evils find abode)!
At first, 'twill just a trickle be:
Within a blog, or forum post,
Some angsty, ribald poetry
Shall find an unsuspecting host.
But then shall come a limerick black,
And none will think to turn it back.
Nantucket's son hath doom'd us all!
Roses carnal; violets bruis'd!
Now gasp as scansion's pillars fall!
Now shriek as Lady Rhyme's abus'd!
And thou, O Denver, will'd it through:
Pandora's Box in one Haiku.
I wonder now at you, thou proud
And scornful son of turpitude,
Who hath through Asian verse allow'd
A mocking message, base and rude,
To dance upon the Internet
And other hateful rhymes beget.
What then, O bastard? Aye, what then?
A thousand sins could cleave a path
Throughout th'electric world of men
(So far untouch'd by Satan's wrath;
Where virtue shines in every code,
And vice nor evils find abode)!
At first, 'twill just a trickle be:
Within a blog, or forum post,
Some angsty, ribald poetry
Shall find an unsuspecting host.
But then shall come a limerick black,
And none will think to turn it back.
Nantucket's son hath doom'd us all!
Roses carnal; violets bruis'd!
Now gasp as scansion's pillars fall!
Now shriek as Lady Rhyme's abus'd!
And thou, O Denver, will'd it through:
Pandora's Box in one Haiku.
This moved me so much that I wrote a 1 word essay on it.
Owned.
edit: As I realize that this may be considered spam, I suppose I should weigh in on the issue at hand.
While I am not religious, I have always felt that the ACLU and like-minded people, many of whom inhabit these boards, are overly zealous in their pursuit of absolute adherence to the establishment clause. As such, I disapprove of the judge's ruling on legal grounds, but applaud his telling the ACLU off.
If hefner was a rich, gay, playboy and had hot steamy sex with hot guys would you choose him? Of course not, mainly because im a straight male and find that stuff gross.
Stand by my side should I fight
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower
But religion is practice. What practice does it endorse?
The practice of god-worship.
Quote from Furor »
I think you underestimate the power of religion, misunderstand the point of religion, and disregard the benefits of religion.
Of course you're not being serious, so here's a quote from The West Wing that I like:
Though different in context, it is this sort of thing that should be considered when throwing around accusations of establishing a religion. If abstract sin becomes a federal offense, then yes, it might be time to start paying attention to what's going on. If the police fine you for not Honoring the Lord, thy God, then conceivably a case could be made that a state religion has, in fact, been established.
But let us drop this childish notion that a government can not mention one of the most vital aspects of the majority of its citizens' lives simply because There Could Be Trouble. The government really does have to consider religion when making its decisions, and really must be able to discuss this freely.
It not only does not have to consider religion, it should not. Separation of church and state doesn't mean an atheist state, it means a state strictly indifferent to all religion. The ten commandments prominantly displayed on government property most certainly falls under the category of considering religion. So does a prayer in an official presidential speech.
first off, i'd like to say i think you are quite rude, and not just from the evidence presented below, but other posts i have seen as well...
Quote from Furor »
This response is a few days late, but... Well, I'm just bored, frankly.
then why bother? take your "superior" mind and ideas somewhere else.
you're accusing the SCOTUS of bowing to Bush's wishes
um, 4 of 8 justices with a track record vote in lockstep with bush's ideals, and roberts' ruling history is well in line with that same agenda. it is NOT a religious agenda, it is an economic, corporatist agenda that is wrapped in a cloak of religion to sway your all-important "southern vote." under bush's policies, many 2-parent homes must have both parents working a combined 3 jobs so they can afford to raise the 2 kids that they used to be able to afford to raise before the father lost his job only to find the market for the line of work he spent years studying for go dry. under bush, companies have been allowed to default on pensions that people spent up to 40+ years building - because the CEO's "mismanaged" their companies. that is an outrage that should never have been allowed to pass. never mind the increases in pollution allowances that bush's "environmental" policies give to corporate america.
they have one god - the almighty dollar... humans or jesus be damned.
Lacking a clear view of just what conspiracy you're accusing the leader of the free world and the rulers of his country of hatching, I'll assume you mean they've set aside their personal histories, careers and oaths, along with 200 years of legal precedent
their personal histories? you mean rumsfeld selling weapons to saddam hussein? how about the fact that bush has not managed to run a single business successfully aside from a baseball franchise, whose sole cause for "success" is based on the building of a stadium on land he had condemned so he could steal it from the rightful owners (who sued him - and won!)? both alito and justice roberts have histories of belonging to a group whose political ideology is, essentially, to take whatever they want however they must, and many of their decisions reflect that. people break oaths all the time (divorce, anyone?), so out with that. many people in the bush administration and in congress believe that many legal precedents should be declared invalid (abortion, FISA court, social security, etc.), so why not more?
Why, exactly? What worries you so much about him? What could he conceivably do?
infest the court for 25 years or more...
I must also object to the severely negative approach you're taking to this. The confirmation process isn't designed to make or break Supreme Court Justices in an effort to thrill the nation.
see: robert bork, clarence thomas for two recent examples. and that was from the democrats, back when they had the congress and the media. if you pay attention to the "justice sunday" events that always happen when a SC nominee is getting into trouble, you'll see the republicans making a huge spectacle of the process.
Getting people to vote Democrat en masse is like getting people to stop jaywalking en masse. They could, sure, but why bother? The sort of people most likely to vote Democrat in the first place are also some of the least likely to vote at all. Who does vote? Old people. Zealous people. The first group are old-fashioned, of course, and will skew towards the family values ticket. The second group is more of a mixed bag, but it must be remembered that the American South Is A Big Deal, and even the most radical liberals of the North have got nothing on the redneck vote.
they have stolen elections. accept this fact. it has been well documented. the facts are out there... check out the congressional black caucus' report on ohio 2004, if you have the guts to have your belief in non-stolen elections challenged.
You're right that this is not good for the democratic system, but virtually nothing is, these days. A change is in order, perhaps, and it could take one of two directions. You could either make the general public smarter, or implement a system of governance that does not rely upon the general public's intelligence, interaction or even awareness of its existence to function.
so why choose the route that leads to the stupefying of human beings?
Finally, do not "vote Democrat en masse" if you want to change this country for the better. Vote for the best platform, whomever may hold it. Even if this means voting for some fringe independent. Perhaps, even, especially.
you start to make some sense here, but i must disagree based on the severity of the system. i'm not a hardcore democrat; however, i am a realist. this country needs a portion of its government controlled by some party other than the republicans as soon as possible. the democrats are the most expedient way to get there. a viable third party could form, but they're in for a tough fight, as many major party candidates on both sides have fought to exclude all but the best funded third-party candidates from public debates, etc. for years. we also have to get along with the rest of the world, not try to "free" other countries unnecessarily, and at great cost.
And yet, nothing is being done. I seem to remember the founders of your country actually did do something about a similar problem they were having, only they had it easier than you do. With a Monarchy, after all, it's not like you'd really have any say one way or another. With a democratically-elected government, however, there is a real sense of betrayal when they do a sloppy, piss-poor job.
um, warfare was much different in potential back then, for one. example: no planes to drop bombs on an uprising... so yeah, they had it a LOT easier than we would, and that is a major factor.
a lot of people have been betrayed by this administration, but they are so afraid of "the terrorists" - a fear that the bush cronies have done everything to inspire and maintain - that they adhere to the "unwavering" leader. this is why it is so hard to argue with a "bushie" - they will try their hardest to remain ignorant of presentable fact, in the spirit of the man who vows to protect them from the same people they may never be unafraid of.
I guess what I'm saying to you is drop a log or get off the pot. If it's not bad enough that you've been moved to do what the Founding Fathers would have had you do if it really was that bad, then it, er, isn't really that bad.
so, i'm supposed to create an army and go to war against the government? i prefer to achieve my goals through the real means the founding fathers intended AFTER they did the "founding" - by using the freedom they granted me to speak my mind, and my opinions, and anything else i please, in the hopes that, just maybe, someone will think differently after hearing my words and agree with my viewpoint.
And if there's an actual terrorist attack, what then? Will you shuffle your feat and mumble a grudging apology? Or just bounce back, shrieking about how convenient it all is?
i'll probably be doing what i did the last two times my city has taken one on the chin for this country - make sure all my people are safe and, if necessary, drive around and scoop them up. terrorism is no one's fault but the people committing the act. no one has anything to apologize for but them.
What piece of America would that be? The piece that leads to public school teachers being reprimanded for allowing kids to lead prayer in class? The piece that barely lets the government mention religion without being dragged over the coals by some left-wing special interest?
sir, please keep in mind that the ACLU has fought as hard, and almost as often, to defend the rights of individuals to practice their religions as they have fought to (rightfully, as per the founding fathers you like to refer to so much) keep religion out of arenas that are controlled by the government. the best way to respect all religions - and all races - is to give (official) deference to none of them. that is the piece that is currently rotting...
And that, as they say, is that.
apparently, not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
I feel kinda under posting here, but ill just make this quick.
Im an aethist.
So a Court gets to keep its 10 commandments.
Q. How does this effect me?
A. It doesnt.
I`ll ***** and moan when im forced to pray to jesus or something. But at this point, thats not happening.
As for the Neo Con agenda? Yeah, they play with the 'flock' and the flock falls for it. I do think some of the things are truly evil, extreme pro business measures. (Tax cuts to the Gas industry, in the same qtr they hit record setting profits, is a good example)
I yearn for the days when the Republican party actually stood on its ideals of Less Deficit, Controlled spending, and Less Govt. None of these 3 major tentents is the current republican party following.
I want the NeoCon right pushing more and more to the right. The AVG american is pretty center, and when they realize that people dont have their best intrests out for them, they`ll ignore the gays, and vote for people (republican or democrat) that will promise them, that their job wont be outsourced to india.
Cuse when its all said and done, and public looks back. They`ll discover that the idiots running this country at the moment, do NOT have anyones best intrests in mind, but their own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(NOTE TO SELF: UPDATE 3 YEAR OLD SIG SOME DAY)
If you use Frank Karsten`s Online Tech to see how popular a specific deck is, I just made it twice as efficient. You`re welcome.
The ten commandments prominantly displayed on government property most certainly falls under the category of considering religion.
Off couse, I agree with that.
Quote from Bogardan Mage »
So does a prayer in an official presidential speech.
[/size]
Not really, the president can have and show some faith in the white house, even during speeches, it is his right, he is the elected head of the government, not its official representative in every way. While I disagree with religion due to its high conviction to totally arbitrary beliefs, I don't mind officials showing some of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click here to visit my userpage at Wikipedia, where I am currently an administrator.:cool2:
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
Most churches stayed out of politics until the past few decades or so. Most religious leaders did not wish to enter a sphere so divisive and so trivial for the sake of their congregations.
In this specific instance, the ruling is silly. To display just the ten commandments is unconstituional. To do it as a display of ancient law, such as with Hammurabi's Code, is not. Unnecessary controversy just for the sake of it.
Im sorry but that seems incorrect. Churches have been political since the separation of western Roman Catholicism from Eastern Orthodox practice (for christianity)...
Also, think theocracy.
If you are referring specifically to the United States, I will claim ignorance, but I would guess that churches politicize their inhabitants far more (historically) than you would believe. Consider your 1776 revolution against Britain; the largest segment of active / successful dissent was protestant, puritan, land-owning males. Religious to the hilt.
Im sorry but that seems incorrect. Churches have been political since the separation of western Roman Catholicism from Eastern Orthodox practice (for christianity)...
If you are referring specifically to the United States, I will claim ignorance, but I would guess that churches politicize their inhabitants far more (historically) than you would believe. Consider your 1776 revolution against Britain; the largest segment of active / successful dissent was protestant, puritan, land-owning males. Religious to the hilt.
I think that you are putting two seemingly related statistics together that seem to have no correlation. Sure, most seperatists were Protestant, but so were most actual people during the time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
Not really, the president can have and show some faith in the white house, even during speeches, it is his right, he is the elected head of the government, not its official representative in every way. While I disagree with religion due to its high conviction to totally arbitrary beliefs, I don't mind officials showing some of it.
He can show it, but he shouldn't associate it with his duties as head of state. He is elected to represent his nation, and if he entwines his own religion in there he is misrepresenting a nation founded on religious freedom. Let him be a Christian on his own time.
But religion is practice. What practice does it endorse?
I'm not a theologian, nor do I study religion.
I do, however, study American history, culture, and society.
Given that, it is easy for me to say that the practice endorsed is Christianity.
I think you underestimate the power of religion, misunderstand the point of religion, and disregard the benefits of religion.
Of course, it has not ever served me well, and each time I've visited upon it, it has done nothing but incite evil and vile lies.
Of course you're not being serious, so here's a quote from The West Wing that I like:
Quote from The West Wing »
"...there's nothing wrong with a religion whose laws say a man's got to wear a beard or cover his head or wear a collar. It's when violation of these laws become a crime against the state and not your parents that we're talking about lack of choice."
That's great - deriving religious, political, and social ramifications and meanings from a television show.
Though different in context, it is this sort of thing that should be considered when throwing around accusations of establishing a religion. If abstract sin becomes a federal offense, then yes, it might be time to start paying attention to what's going on.
People should pay attention to what the government is doing at all times, lest it try and take fair liberties and good freedoms from you. The government has no right to relieve us of freedoms it thinks what ought not to have.
We, the people, on the other hand, have every right, have every ability, and have the need to tell the government when we think it is going to far.
If the police fine you for not Honoring the Lord, thy God, then conceivably a case could be made that a state religion has, in fact, been established.
Maybe.
But let us drop this childish notion that a government can not mention one of the most vital aspects of the majority of its citizens' lives simply because There Could Be Trouble. The government really does have to consider religion when making its decisions, and really must be able to discuss this freely.
Absolutely.
But what does giving free rein to it's discussion in terms of decision making have anything to do with the ten commandments being hung in a courthouse?
Your nauseating, wretched excuse for poetry boils my blood.
I know.
That I, who have read Dryden, should have to put up with a terrible imitation of a poetic form that isn't really all that great in the first place is a new level of infamy, and it comes as no surprise that it is you, Denver, who hath wrought it.
Why, Furor, I have yet to even begin to defile myself or all forms of poetry.
I even wrote a verse epistle in imitation of Wordsworth about it.
I wonder now at you, thou proud
And scornful son of turpitude,
Who hath through Asian verse allow'd
A mocking message, base and rude,
To dance upon the Internet
And other hateful rhymes beget.
What then, O bastard? Aye, what then?
A thousand sins could cleave a path
Throughout th'electric world of men
(So far untouch'd by Satan's wrath;
Where virtue shines in every code,
And vice nor evils find abode)!
At first, 'twill just a trickle be:
Within a blog, or forum post,
Some angsty, ribald poetry
Shall find an unsuspecting host.
But then shall come a limerick black,
And none will think to turn it back.
Nantucket's son hath doom'd us all!
Roses carnal; violets bruis'd!
Now gasp as scansion's pillars fall!
Now shriek as Lady Rhyme's abus'd!
And thou, O Denver, will'd it through:
Pandora's Box in one Haiku.
A waste, it serves no purpose, is roundabout and circuitous, and is entirely devoid of meaning.
I hope you die by getting run over by a truck delivering a fresh printing of Wordsworth (or Coleridge, he'll do in a pinch) to someplace gluttonous, like Barnes & Noble or Borders.
So does a prayer in an official presidential speech.
As a consequence, the Lord's Prayer is rarely given at press conferences.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Though different in context, it is this sort of thing that should be considered when throwing around accusations of establishing a religion. If abstract sin becomes a federal offense, then yes, it might be time to start paying attention to what's going on.
Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath, not because of his infidelity.
If presidents could be impeached for infidelity, then presidents from Kennedy to FDR to arguably Adams would have sweat a little under the collar.
Quote from Lanky »
If you are referring specifically to the United States, I will claim ignorance, but I would guess that churches politicize their inhabitants far more (historically) than you would believe. Consider your 1776 revolution against Britain; the largest segment of active / successful dissent was protestant, puritan, land-owning males. Religious to the hilt.
I am mostly speaking for the United States, as this thread is about the US constitution. Our only real religious preoccupation before the last half a century was whether the candidate was Cathlolic or not. The most "active" segment of the population during the revolution were those who could afford to spend time on something like that. I imagine a fair number of those were Protestant because it was a good selling point in business at the time in local markets. Not a cause-effect relationship.
Many in fact claimed to be protestant but exhibited deist/even athiestic beliefs. My main point though is that the politicizing of churches has increased quite dramatically recently. Entire churches are considered support bases now.
Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath, not because of his infidelity.
I'm aware. But by the same standard, Bush should be impeached because he lied too. As my history teacher says, "When they says it's not about the sex, it's about the sex." For some strange reason, lying about war > lying about *********.
So we've heard an official ruling on it. What's the mtgsal ruling?
Wow! Thats ****ed! I wish I had anything more intelligent to say but I'm too baffled. I can't say anything but how ****ed that is.:frown:
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause!
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw: SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
I'm aware. But by the same standard, Bush should be impeached because he lied too. As my history teacher says, "When they says it's not about the sex, it's about the sex." For some strange reason, lying about war > lying about *********.
Go ahead and try to get him impeached. You'll find it a very hard case to prove.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from ljossberir »
Prizm is the key to the greatness of the US!
Quote from Phyrexian »
If hefner was a rich, gay, playboy and had hot steamy sex with hot guys would you choose him? Of course not, mainly because im a straight male and find that stuff gross.
Stand by my side should I fight
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower
I'm aware. But by the same standard, Bush should be impeached because he lied too. As my history teacher says, "When they says it's not about the sex, it's about the sex." For some strange reason, lying about war > lying about *********.
Go ahead and try to get him impeached. You'll find it a very hard case to prove.
You're both arguing a moot point.
George W. Bush has never really testified under oath, in any meaningful sense. Whether or not he could be proven a liar is irrelevant.
George W. Bush has never really testified under oath, in any meaningful sense. Whether or not he could be proven a liar is irrelevant.
Which would make it a hard case, no?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from ljossberir »
Prizm is the key to the greatness of the US!
Quote from Phyrexian »
If hefner was a rich, gay, playboy and had hot steamy sex with hot guys would you choose him? Of course not, mainly because im a straight male and find that stuff gross.
Stand by my side should I fight
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Without any significane does not imply it does not endorse "religion."
It simply does not endorse one specific religion. (With regards to specificity, it would be in the scope of the monotheistic religions.)
Of course. And I see no problem to restrict the government - a body mostly used to tell people how to live - to never mention religion. Since that has absolutely nothing to do with ruling over people.
Your trite and pithy excuses for humor make me sick. I even wrote a haiku about it.
Your face makes me sick.
When I see you, I vomit.
Die away from me.
I think you underestimate the power of religion, misunderstand the point of religion, and disregard the benefits of religion.
Of course you're not being serious, so here's a quote from The West Wing that I like:
Though different in context, it is this sort of thing that should be considered when throwing around accusations of establishing a religion. If abstract sin becomes a federal offense, then yes, it might be time to start paying attention to what's going on. If the police fine you for not Honoring the Lord, thy God, then conceivably a case could be made that a state religion has, in fact, been established.
But let us drop this childish notion that a government can not mention one of the most vital aspects of the majority of its citizens' lives simply because There Could Be Trouble. The government really does have to consider religion when making its decisions, and really must be able to discuss this freely.
Your nauseating, wretched excuse for poetry boils my blood. That I, who have read Dryden, should have to put up with a terrible imitation of a poetic form that isn't really all that great in the first place is a new level of infamy, and it comes as no surprise that it is you, Denver, who hath wrought it. I even wrote a verse epistle in imitation of Wordsworth about it.
I wonder now at you, thou proud
And scornful son of turpitude,
Who hath through Asian verse allow'd
A mocking message, base and rude,
To dance upon the Internet
And other hateful rhymes beget.
What then, O bastard? Aye, what then?
A thousand sins could cleave a path
Throughout th'electric world of men
(So far untouch'd by Satan's wrath;
Where virtue shines in every code,
And vice nor evils find abode)!
At first, 'twill just a trickle be:
Within a blog, or forum post,
Some angsty, ribald poetry
Shall find an unsuspecting host.
But then shall come a limerick black,
And none will think to turn it back.
Nantucket's son hath doom'd us all!
Roses carnal; violets bruis'd!
Now gasp as scansion's pillars fall!
Now shriek as Lady Rhyme's abus'd!
And thou, O Denver, will'd it through:
Pandora's Box in one Haiku.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
This moved me so much that I wrote a 1 word essay on it.
Owned.
edit: As I realize that this may be considered spam, I suppose I should weigh in on the issue at hand.
While I am not religious, I have always felt that the ACLU and like-minded people, many of whom inhabit these boards, are overly zealous in their pursuit of absolute adherence to the establishment clause. As such, I disapprove of the judge's ruling on legal grounds, but applaud his telling the ACLU off.
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower
The practice of god-worship.
It not only does not have to consider religion, it should not. Separation of church and state doesn't mean an atheist state, it means a state strictly indifferent to all religion. The ten commandments prominantly displayed on government property most certainly falls under the category of considering religion. So does a prayer in an official presidential speech.
In terms of my own personal views, I'm probably closer to Bogardan Mage in the principle of the thing, but with Prizm in the practice.
then why bother? take your "superior" mind and ideas somewhere else.
um, 4 of 8 justices with a track record vote in lockstep with bush's ideals, and roberts' ruling history is well in line with that same agenda. it is NOT a religious agenda, it is an economic, corporatist agenda that is wrapped in a cloak of religion to sway your all-important "southern vote." under bush's policies, many 2-parent homes must have both parents working a combined 3 jobs so they can afford to raise the 2 kids that they used to be able to afford to raise before the father lost his job only to find the market for the line of work he spent years studying for go dry. under bush, companies have been allowed to default on pensions that people spent up to 40+ years building - because the CEO's "mismanaged" their companies. that is an outrage that should never have been allowed to pass. never mind the increases in pollution allowances that bush's "environmental" policies give to corporate america.
they have one god - the almighty dollar... humans or jesus be damned.
their personal histories? you mean rumsfeld selling weapons to saddam hussein? how about the fact that bush has not managed to run a single business successfully aside from a baseball franchise, whose sole cause for "success" is based on the building of a stadium on land he had condemned so he could steal it from the rightful owners (who sued him - and won!)? both alito and justice roberts have histories of belonging to a group whose political ideology is, essentially, to take whatever they want however they must, and many of their decisions reflect that. people break oaths all the time (divorce, anyone?), so out with that. many people in the bush administration and in congress believe that many legal precedents should be declared invalid (abortion, FISA court, social security, etc.), so why not more?
infest the court for 25 years or more...
see: robert bork, clarence thomas for two recent examples. and that was from the democrats, back when they had the congress and the media. if you pay attention to the "justice sunday" events that always happen when a SC nominee is getting into trouble, you'll see the republicans making a huge spectacle of the process.
they have stolen elections. accept this fact. it has been well documented. the facts are out there... check out the congressional black caucus' report on ohio 2004, if you have the guts to have your belief in non-stolen elections challenged.
so why choose the route that leads to the stupefying of human beings?
you start to make some sense here, but i must disagree based on the severity of the system. i'm not a hardcore democrat; however, i am a realist. this country needs a portion of its government controlled by some party other than the republicans as soon as possible. the democrats are the most expedient way to get there. a viable third party could form, but they're in for a tough fight, as many major party candidates on both sides have fought to exclude all but the best funded third-party candidates from public debates, etc. for years. we also have to get along with the rest of the world, not try to "free" other countries unnecessarily, and at great cost.
um, warfare was much different in potential back then, for one. example: no planes to drop bombs on an uprising... so yeah, they had it a LOT easier than we would, and that is a major factor.
a lot of people have been betrayed by this administration, but they are so afraid of "the terrorists" - a fear that the bush cronies have done everything to inspire and maintain - that they adhere to the "unwavering" leader. this is why it is so hard to argue with a "bushie" - they will try their hardest to remain ignorant of presentable fact, in the spirit of the man who vows to protect them from the same people they may never be unafraid of.
so, i'm supposed to create an army and go to war against the government? i prefer to achieve my goals through the real means the founding fathers intended AFTER they did the "founding" - by using the freedom they granted me to speak my mind, and my opinions, and anything else i please, in the hopes that, just maybe, someone will think differently after hearing my words and agree with my viewpoint.
i'll probably be doing what i did the last two times my city has taken one on the chin for this country - make sure all my people are safe and, if necessary, drive around and scoop them up. terrorism is no one's fault but the people committing the act. no one has anything to apologize for but them.
sir, please keep in mind that the ACLU has fought as hard, and almost as often, to defend the rights of individuals to practice their religions as they have fought to (rightfully, as per the founding fathers you like to refer to so much) keep religion out of arenas that are controlled by the government. the best way to respect all religions - and all races - is to give (official) deference to none of them. that is the piece that is currently rotting...
apparently, not.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Im an aethist.
So a Court gets to keep its 10 commandments.
Q. How does this effect me?
A. It doesnt.
I`ll ***** and moan when im forced to pray to jesus or something. But at this point, thats not happening.
As for the Neo Con agenda? Yeah, they play with the 'flock' and the flock falls for it. I do think some of the things are truly evil, extreme pro business measures. (Tax cuts to the Gas industry, in the same qtr they hit record setting profits, is a good example)
I yearn for the days when the Republican party actually stood on its ideals of Less Deficit, Controlled spending, and Less Govt. None of these 3 major tentents is the current republican party following.
I want the NeoCon right pushing more and more to the right. The AVG american is pretty center, and when they realize that people dont have their best intrests out for them, they`ll ignore the gays, and vote for people (republican or democrat) that will promise them, that their job wont be outsourced to india.
Cuse when its all said and done, and public looks back. They`ll discover that the idiots running this country at the moment, do NOT have anyones best intrests in mind, but their own.
If you use Frank Karsten`s Online Tech to see how popular a specific deck is, I just made it twice as efficient. You`re welcome.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/fk23 (read the end)
And Flores is apparently jelous....
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mf130 (read the first real paragraph)
Off couse, I agree with that.
Not really, the president can have and show some faith in the white house, even during speeches, it is his right, he is the elected head of the government, not its official representative in every way. While I disagree with religion due to its high conviction to totally arbitrary beliefs, I don't mind officials showing some of it.
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
Im sorry but that seems incorrect. Churches have been political since the separation of western Roman Catholicism from Eastern Orthodox practice (for christianity)...
Also, think theocracy.
If you are referring specifically to the United States, I will claim ignorance, but I would guess that churches politicize their inhabitants far more (historically) than you would believe. Consider your 1776 revolution against Britain; the largest segment of active / successful dissent was protestant, puritan, land-owning males. Religious to the hilt.
Earlier than that.
I think that you are putting two seemingly related statistics together that seem to have no correlation. Sure, most seperatists were Protestant, but so were most actual people during the time.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
He can show it, but he shouldn't associate it with his duties as head of state. He is elected to represent his nation, and if he entwines his own religion in there he is misrepresenting a nation founded on religious freedom. Let him be a Christian on his own time.
I'm not a theologian, nor do I study religion.
I do, however, study American history, culture, and society.
Given that, it is easy for me to say that the practice endorsed is Christianity.
Of course, it has not ever served me well, and each time I've visited upon it, it has done nothing but incite evil and vile lies.
That's great - deriving religious, political, and social ramifications and meanings from a television show.
People should pay attention to what the government is doing at all times, lest it try and take fair liberties and good freedoms from you. The government has no right to relieve us of freedoms it thinks what ought not to have.
We, the people, on the other hand, have every right, have every ability, and have the need to tell the government when we think it is going to far.
Maybe.
Absolutely.
But what does giving free rein to it's discussion in terms of decision making have anything to do with the ten commandments being hung in a courthouse?
I know.
Why, Furor, I have yet to even begin to defile myself or all forms of poetry.
A waste, it serves no purpose, is roundabout and circuitous, and is entirely devoid of meaning.
I hope you die by getting run over by a truck delivering a fresh printing of Wordsworth (or Coleridge, he'll do in a pinch) to someplace gluttonous, like Barnes & Noble or Borders.
As a consequence, the Lord's Prayer is rarely given at press conferences.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
*Cough*CLINTON*Cough*
Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath, not because of his infidelity.
If presidents could be impeached for infidelity, then presidents from Kennedy to FDR to arguably Adams would have sweat a little under the collar.
I am mostly speaking for the United States, as this thread is about the US constitution. Our only real religious preoccupation before the last half a century was whether the candidate was Cathlolic or not. The most "active" segment of the population during the revolution were those who could afford to spend time on something like that. I imagine a fair number of those were Protestant because it was a good selling point in business at the time in local markets. Not a cause-effect relationship.
Many in fact claimed to be protestant but exhibited deist/even athiestic beliefs. My main point though is that the politicizing of churches has increased quite dramatically recently. Entire churches are considered support bases now.
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
;]
Edit- Sorry Den =p
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
And, yes, if you're so sleep deprived you're mis-attributing quotes, go to bed, man.
I'm aware. But by the same standard, Bush should be impeached because he lied too. As my history teacher says, "When they says it's not about the sex, it's about the sex." For some strange reason, lying about war > lying about *********.
Wow! Thats ****ed! I wish I had anything more intelligent to say but I'm too baffled. I can't say anything but how ****ed that is.:frown:
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:
SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
Go ahead and try to get him impeached. You'll find it a very hard case to prove.
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower
You're both arguing a moot point.
George W. Bush has never really testified under oath, in any meaningful sense. Whether or not he could be proven a liar is irrelevant.
Which would make it a hard case, no?
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower