So, on the one hand, you resent the Liberals for their ability to tell you how to run your life.

But on the other hand, you applaud the Republicans for what you consider to be an appropriate attempt to direct the morals of the country -- telling other Americans how to run their lives.

You don't dislike a government entity directing the way Americans act, behave, think . . . you just want your people doing it . . .

You're a progressive little zealot, aintcha?

Well, it's both. Some lobby, group or individual has to bring up the issue with the court and judge to begin with. Thereafter a judge makes a decision. That's what I meant.

I think he should remove it and put a big pentagram and goats head or some other satanic symbol just to stir things up some more.

One atheist' perspective.

The biggest problem I have with all of this is that I dont believe these lobbyist groups have righteous motives. I think it is an out and out attack on religion in general. I can't believe that they would really care whether or not the Ten Commandments are on the steps, or if "Under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. Or even worse, I can't say Merry Christmas to a student here at my school because I might offend a non-christian student. I have to say "Happy Holidays" instead.

Can we all agree that these instances are all part of the same subject, even loosely? And if we can all agree, hasn't it gone just a bit too far?

I understand that we do not want religion to be making policy in this country. But I still believe that certain moral tenets in our society that may have been spawned by religion are under attack simply because their roots can be traced back to religion of some kind.

I see the state of morality in this country going downhill. I see MTV glorifying the "thug" mentality in its videos and attitudes of the performers they push on us. Breaking the law seems to be in style these days. I see our Presidents and Sports Stars commiting adultry and using drugs and committing violent crimes and no one seems to be outraged. I see groups like the ACLU defending NAMBLA under free speech. I see judges calling the Boy Scouts a religious group and taking away thier place to gather.

I see politicians on both sides of the fence buckling under pressure from special interest groups. I believe many of these men and women got into politics with righteous motives, but saw that if they didnt play the game, they would never get anything accomplished. The irony of it is that they never get anything accomplished because they are playing the game.

I see the constitution being bastardized by judges that have agendas. There is no such thing as a neutral judge anymore.

What are they trying to accomplish? A morality free society? What good moral cant be traced in some way to religion? Before you all go nuts, there are plenty of bad things that have been done in the name of religion, but they were done by people in the name of religion, not religion itself.

We talk about humanism, and secular morality. Simple ideas like character. Character to me is made up of honesty, responsibilty, trustworthyness, and other intangible things of that nature. I don't need to have fear of burning in hell to be a person of character. I dont steal, murder, lie, cheat, or any other number of things out of fear of eternal damnnation. I do it because it's the right thing to do. Religion needs to hang these things over our heads in an effort to coerce us into being well-behaved.I don't need to be coerced. But if this(religion) is what it takes to keep some people in line, than so be it. OUr society is getting to the point where I dont think people care anymore about doing what is right, they only care about doing what they want.

Sorry for the longness and sometimes ramblyness of my rant. Just things that I think about.

I don't want either telling me how to live my life. But, since they both are going too, I prefer the Republicans and their way of thinking. They represent me. The Democrats represent a group of people who think they represent me. Oh yeah, please explain "progressive".

I betcha nothing would be done about it...

Speaking from a Christian point of view; you hit the nail on the head. I couldn't agree more. No, I don't want religion of any kind making federal policy, but I do want some of the Christian value system placed in it.

MBFlyerfan has read my mind. I could not have said it better.

MBflyerfan,
That was very well put. Since you are an atheist your opinion probably carries more weight than just another Christian spouting off. Kudos!

MBflyerfan for SENATE...

Well said...

Good job MBFlyerfan. Personally I think that values weather the be christian, buddhist, hinu, in their purest sense are about how to behave in society as a whole.

Praise from Ceasar.

Just remember what happened to Ceasar

Which one?

Well, first they spelled his fucking name right . . .

Then they named the Caesar salad after him . . .

???

LOL

Lemme throw in my $.02...

First off, using Jefferson to defend the current interpretation of what is referred to as the 'separation of church and state' is a mistake. The "Wall of seperation" letter was written to calm the fears of one group, an intimate conversation, if you will, and not neccessarily intended for longevity.

What many people don't know is Jefferson was fundamentally against the bill of rights. Yep, The fellow who is seen as the archetect of the separation of church and state would have rather it not be part of the constitution at all. That's certainly not to say he didn't agree with many of the ideals, just that they need not be part of our constitution.

Another interesting thing is Jefferson while saying there would be a wall of separtation between church and state, meaning in the particular document that the federal government would not interfere in matters of religion; did not believe that that also applied to the individual states. Congress did not include the states, and at that time we still had a tenth ammendment. So certainly, Alabama would have the right to display a religious monument, despite the first ammendment, which explicitly applies to congress.

What has changed in constitutional law between then and now is the current interpretation of the commerce clause. Which fundamentally voids the tenth ammendment (which gives the states all rights and privlidges not explicitly granted the the federal goverment), by stating the federal goverment has juristiction in any matter that can effect trade between states (read as: absolutely everything)

To wrap this up... invoking Jefferson seems to be a flawwed arguement for either side, as not only was it a peice of legislation he disapproved of, but the Danbury letter is also rather ambiguous in it's nature. The determination of whether it was a ploy to garner support or an outright declaration rests solely in your opinion of the matter.

Very interesting Coop. I shall have to further study this some more. Be careful though, I don't think Moby will take this very lightly.

You sir, are correct. Jefferson very much DID support the Bill of Rights.

Jefferson on a Bill of Rights

More proof Jefferson DID want the Bill of Rights

Told you. He has some kind of Jefferson fetish.

I regard Jefferson as possibly the greatest American there has ever been. Sorry you don't feel that way. :p

He's up there. Along with Franklin, Washington, Lincoln, Hale, and Tyson.

Tyson...definite Top 3 material there... anyone who can eat people's children....