First off there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that says to keep religion out of government. There is, it so happens, a passage that says, "The government will not establish a religion." Learn the difference. For those of you that are to lazy to look it up, that means our good Uncle Sam will not be able to tell you how to pray or to whom to pray to, but then on the other hand they. the government, can and does have prayer breaksfasts, a pray before the start of congress, etc. None of the government officials have to attend any of these events if they don't want to, the same as "WE" don't have to attend any religious event that "WE" don't want to.

Therefore, you may all worship any way you want to as long as it don't interfer with my right to worship any way I want. Remember, your right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ends at the tip of my nose.

Originally Posted by ceejay

Ya' know...maybe if you had left out this sentence...what you are saying would make sense.

I think you blew it.

VILLAGER2 appears to have a feeling that he/she is above the rest of us, yet you very seldom read a well thought out, researched response from him/her...only pontifications and name calling.

In my book, that does not elevate you to ABOVE the rest but well, well below

Originally Posted by Bucco

VILLAGER2 appears to have a feeling that he/she is above the rest of us, yet you very seldom read a well thought out, researched response from him/her...only pontifications and name calling.

In my book, that does not elevate you to ABOVE the rest but well, well below

I read it twice, but still have no idea what you mean. I am just a simple man with simple needs. Please do not think I feel anything other than that.

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

djplong~ Here's a scenario for you...You are a single lady who has been told that she will never be able to conceive. You have known your fiance for 5 years when you find out that you are indeed pregnant. Happily you inform the fiance that the impossible has now become possible. He sternly informs you that he doesn't want children and begins to write the check to "take care" of this...ie, get the abortion. After you refuse, he walks out of your life. You have no parents left in your life to assist you, and it is in an era where unwed pregnancies are not the norm yet. Yet some raw, primal, instinct deep inside of you (and inside every woman) KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person inside of you, is JUST THAT-A PERSON!!! So....you pick yourself up by the boot straps as you were raised to do, you carry this innocent life to completion. You struggle to make ends meet and give this child the best life has to offer. She grows up to be a beautiful, intelligent woman with 5 children of her own-to whom she is a wonderful mother. You do all of this because it is the right thing to do, because we are civilized humans not barbarians, because greater love has no man than to lay down his life for another...
I am that woman, so don't give us that selfish "life was tough at that moment" garbage. We can accomplish great feats of love, when we CHOOSE to. It ain't always easy, but it is ALWAYS worth it!

1) Katz, you said it was a scenario for me.. I'll get to that.

2) You then said you were that woman. So should I make the assumption that you want to know what I would have done in your position? Or are you simply expressing your experiences since you DID undergo those circumstances?

If you're asking me, I can *honestly* say that I don't quite know what *I* would do. I'd have some long hard thinking to do. The only part I'm deliberately ignoring is where you say about this being at a point in time where unwed pregnancies weren't as accepted. It's hard enough to respond to the here and now without adding time travel to the mix.

You said you went through this. You also said it was always worth it.

For you, I have no doubt that this is true.

Take a look at any abused kid who's mother wishes they'd never been born and you understand there are no absolutes like that.

I could have been aborted. My birth mother got pregnant without knowing it, dumped her fiancee when she discovered he was married to someone else and then enlisted in the Marines. Mind you, this was 1962! Towards the end of basic training, they discovered her pregnancy and she was given a medical discharge. She told me that, from the instant they'd told her, she knew she was going to give me up for adoption.

The only reason I'm telling you all this is to let you know where my history is on this - and the fact that I have very personal experiences in this area.

There are no one-size-fits-all answers. I can't stand abortion. Never liked it and never will. There are times it's a necessary evil. There are also times that it's abused out of 'convenience' - no argument there.

But until we prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, abortion is going to be in the public debate.

...and as a side note, we have Santorum who's not just against public funding of contraception but against contraception PERIOD!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Abortion is the symptom, not the disease.

Originally Posted by Figmo Bohica

First off there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that says to keep religion out of government. There is, it so happens, a passage that says, "The government will not establish a religion." Learn the difference. For those of you that are to lazy to look it up, that means our good Uncle Sam will not be able to tell you how to pray or to whom to pray to, but then on the other hand they. the government, can and does have prayer breaksfasts, a pray before the start of congress, etc.

Wrong.

The passage is "Congress shall pas no law respecting an establishment of religion".

IT DOES *NOT* SAY "ESTABLISHMENT OF *A* RELIGION"!!!!!!

The word "establishment" is a NOUN in that sentence!

A church or school is an establishment of religion - in the way, as I like to use as an example - that a pub is an establishment of alcohol.

There is a HUGE difference there.

Originally Posted by djplong

1) Katz, you said it was a scenario for me.. I'll get to that.

2) You then said you were that woman. So should I make the assumption that you want to know what I would have done in your position? Or are you simply expressing your experiences since you DID undergo those circumstances?

If you're asking me, I can *honestly* say that I don't quite know what *I* would do. I'd have some long hard thinking to do. The only part I'm deliberately ignoring is where you say about this being at a point in time where unwed pregnancies weren't as accepted. It's hard enough to respond to the here and now without adding time travel to the mix.

You said you went through this. You also said it was always worth it.

For you, I have no doubt that this is true.

Take a look at any abused kid who's mother wishes they'd never been born and you understand there are no absolutes like that.

I could have been aborted. My birth mother got pregnant without knowing it, dumped her fiancee when she discovered he was married to someone else and then enlisted in the Marines. Mind you, this was 1962! Towards the end of basic training, they discovered her pregnancy and she was given a medical discharge. She told me that, from the instant they'd told her, she knew she was going to give me up for adoption.

The only reason I'm telling you all this is to let you know where my history is on this - and the fact that I have very personal experiences in this area.

There are no one-size-fits-all answers. I can't stand abortion. Never liked it and never will. There are times it's a necessary evil. There are also times that it's abused out of 'convenience' - no argument there.

But until we prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, abortion is going to be in the public debate.

...and as a side note, we have Santorum who's not just against public funding of contraception but against contraception PERIOD!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Abortion is the symptom, not the disease.

I only posted my experience, as you seem to think that since you had an "experience", you can be the authority to claim that it is OK for someone to make the decision to end another's life based on their circumstances....and as I have said before- life begins at conception and no one has the right to take an innocent life for any reason.

Going back to the initial subject of this thread, Islamic hatred, I recommend getting this week's Newsweek and reading the cover article - The War on Christians. The facts are straightforward. Christians and other religious minorities are being killed by the tens of thousands in EVERY Muslim majority country. Churches are bombed, women raped and mutilated, beheadings - always popular among Muslims are commonplace.

Islam is not and never has been a religion of peace. Muslims talk constantly about the Crusaders, but never mention that the first crusade was caused by Muslims killing 3,000 unarmed Christians on a pilgrimage to the holy land. They do not refer to the many Muslim crusades seeking to enslave Europe nor do they talk of the Muslim slave trade running from southern Europe to the Islamic nations. Slavery is another thing still popular in Islamic countries.

Islam is the declared enemy of Israel and the United States. Islam has always spoken of tolerance when it exists as a minority. Tolerance ceases to exist when it achieves a majority.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

Going back to the initial subject of this thread, Islamic hatred, I recommend getting this week's Newsweek and reading the cover article - The War on Christians. The facts are straightforward. Christians and other religious minorities are being killed by the tens of thousands in EVERY Muslim majority country. Churches are bombed, women raped and mutilated, beheadings - always popular among Muslims are commonplace.

Islam is not and never has been a religion of peace. Muslims talk constantly about the Crusaders, but never mention that the first crusade was caused by Muslims killing 3,000 unarmed Christians on a pilgrimage to the holy land. They do not refer to the many Muslim crusades seeking to enslave Europe nor do they talk of the Muslim slave trade running from southern Europe to the Islamic nations. Slavery is another thing still popular in Islamic countries.

Islam is the declared enemy of Israel and the United States. Islam has always spoken of tolerance when it exists as a minority. Tolerance ceases to exist when it achieves a majority.

Originally Posted by djplong

Wrong.

The passage is "Congress shall pas no law respecting an establishment of religion".

IT DOES *NOT* SAY "ESTABLISHMENT OF *A* RELIGION"!!!!!!

The word "establishment" is a NOUN in that sentence!

A church or school is an establishment of religion - in the way, as I like to use as an example - that a pub is an establishment of alcohol.

There is a HUGE difference there.

I don't get your analogy at all. A school is an establishment of religion? What are you talking about? I don't see your point at all; I'm serious.

The state shall make no law respecting (meaning the next phrase) an establishment of religion. A direct reference and rejection of what they left, meaning a government religion like the Church of England.

Maybe the complete phrase might clear this up.

(The following is from Wikipedia, if that is acceptable. If not I will look further)

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

Richie...

How about when someone says a phrase like "I shall no longer patronize this establishment". Establishment is a NOUN, not a verb. That's what it is in the Constitution - but people keep thinking "establishment of religion" is worded "establishment of A religion". It's an easy mistake to make because the word 'establishment' isn't really used that way very much these days.

One of the local churches here has several "establishments" - the church itself, a hospital, a soup kitchen and I think they still have a school.

I hereby declare djplong the correct poster in reference to this debate. Sorry Richie, but you missed only by a little bit on this one. Good luck on future posts.

Originally Posted by djplong

Richie...

How about when someone says a phrase like "I shall no longer patronize this establishment". Establishment is a NOUN, not a verb. That's what it is in the Constitution - but people keep thinking "establishment of religion" is worded "establishment of A religion". It's an easy mistake to make because the word 'establishment' isn't really used that way very much these days.

One of the local churches here has several "establishments" - the church itself, a hospital, a soup kitchen and I think they still have a school.

I don't get it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I don't get it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

My point exactly. Trust me on this one.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I don't get it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

This is my point.

People have interpreted the Constitution to mean that the Founders intended for there to be no state religion. And that part is true, but it's not the WHOLE truth.

People have read that clause with the "additional 'a'" in it for a long time - but it simply does not exist.

Every time something like "prayer in school" comes up, those who want it claim that the only thing the Founders prohibited was an arrangement like the Anglican Church in England where *that* was the "official" religion.

The fact of the matter is that the Founders believed that religion was a private matter and not something that government should be involved in - and quite frankly, based on the evidence from thousands of years before and hundreds of years after them, they were correct.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I hereby declare djplong the correct poster in reference to this debate. Sorry Richie, but you missed only by a little bit on this one. Good luck on future posts.

I don't get it. This quote above is directed at me, and when I post that this poster's opinion of DJ's and my discussion is hardly worth the time it took him to write it and that I don't accept his unsubstantiated critique, the Moderator deemed it aimed at him and deletes it. (at little paraphrasing as I don't remember my exact quote)

Was not the above quote aimed at me? Where's the fairness?