When the fundies take over...

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-20 04:30pm

*smugly laughs at Falcon's ignorance*

Mwahahahahaha.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-20 04:35pm

Oy vey...does the title do nothing? Methinketh I smell stronger measures about to be emplaced. There is a whiff of brimstone and hot tar in the air.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-20 04:36pm

Darth Wong wrote:Notice how Falcon smugly restated his opinion without actually dealing with any of my points.

Concession accepted.

You made a point?

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-20 04:37pm

You made a point?

Yeah, Wong did. You didn't. Concession accepted. Commence primary ignition.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-20 04:45pm

Falcon wrote:Someone with strong faith can still govern without using the government to favor one particular religion. Indeed, the Constitution and the courts are there to ensure it.

You haven't explained how someone can vote based on RELIGIOUS preference and still consider themselves a responsible citizen. If your vote for a man is determined by whether he is a Christian than you are voting to create a Christian government. Since the Constitution doesn't ALLOW its government to be based in one religion, where do you not see the conflict of issues?

And don't tell me that there are checks in place that sucessfully prevent the government from favouring one religion. 'In God We Trust', remember?

Tosho · Post by **Tosho** » 2003-01-20 04:55pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
Hmm... I'd escape to Mexico, somehow get to Moscow, get on a train to Vladiostic(sp?) get on a boat, and prepare to to become a U.S. refugee living in Japan.
Fucking traitor! You're a Texan! Rally to the cause!

First of all I'm a Japanophile I was going to go sooner or later the fundies just provided an extra reason to. Secondly I can still serve the U.S., and finally I'm a Texan, a little known fact is that we are still an independent nation posing as a state so that we can make the nation to the north ( I'm not talking about Canada) into a puppet state.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-20 05:00pm

Lagmonster wrote:
Falcon wrote:Someone with strong faith can still govern without using the government to favor one particular religion. Indeed, the Constitution and the courts are there to ensure it.

You haven't explained how someone can vote based on RELIGIOUS preference and still consider themselves a responsible citizen. If your vote for a man is determined by whether he is a Christian than you are voting to create a Christian government. Since the Constitution doesn't ALLOW its government to be based in one religion, where do you not see the conflict of issues?
A Christian can be in office without trying to pass legislation regarding religion. How hard is that to understand?

And don't tell me that there are checks in place that sucessfully prevent the government from favouring one religion. 'In God We Trust', remember?

I don't believe that the pledge itself is Constitutional, and hence I do not repeat it. You are right though, just because the government is supposed to be run a certian way doesn't mean it will be run that way. Thats why its up to the public to see to it that their representatives arn't abusing their power. This regards many things, not just religion.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-20 05:05pm

Falcon wrote:A Christian can be in office without trying to pass legislation regarding religion. How hard is that to understand?

However, I would argue that the basic principles prohibiting religion in governance were violated the moment the administration was elected on the basis of being religious. You cannot claim that a citizen in a democracy can participate in the governmental process (via voting), influence the outcome of that process on the merits of religious orientation, and come out saying that the principle of a religion-free governance has been upheld!

I don't believe that the pledge itself is Constitutional, and hence I do not repeat it. You are right though, just because the government is supposed to be run a certian way doesn't mean it will be run that way. Thats why its up to the public to see to it that their representatives arn't abusing their power. This regards many things, not just religion.

So, you concede that you cannot vote using religion as a guideline and be a responsible citizen. Alright, then.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-20 05:08pm

Lagmonster wrote:
Falcon wrote:A Christian can be in office without trying to pass legislation regarding religion. How hard is that to understand?
However, I would argue that the basic principles prohibiting religion in governance were violated the moment the administration was elected on the basis of being religious. You cannot claim that a citizen in a democracy can participate in the governmental process (via voting), influence the outcome of that process on the merits of religious orientation, and come out saying that the principle of a religion-free governance has been upheld!

I don't believe that the pledge itself is Constitutional, and hence I do not repeat it. You are right though, just because the government is supposed to be run a certian way doesn't mean it will be run that way. Thats why its up to the public to see to it that their representatives arn't abusing their power. This regards many things, not just religion.
So, you concede that you cannot vote using religion as a guideline and be a responsible citizen. Alright, then.

A responsible citizen should want the government to do basically three things, in my opinion. 1. Protect liberty (I include property) 2. Protect from foreign invasion 3. Run the courts

Most everything else can be run by the states or not at all.