CHURCH AND STATE [Archive] - I-Mockery Forum

mburbank

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:29 AM

"Maxi... should everyone be allowed to pray at the high school football game if they want......as long as Congress doesn't make it a law saying that they have to pray?"
-Ronnie

Muddily phrased as always but close enough to a direct question.

You ask MY opinion, and I'll give it freely. Everyone should be and IS allowed to pray. No one can stop you from praying.

I think having an official from the school lead a prayer is something you shouldn't do. It makes a statement of institutional support (and as in the case of your own belief that yours is the only true religion) and thereby excludes others. Should a student wish to lead a prayer (and I don't see why people can't pray silently, it's not like God is deaf) I personally see nio problem with this, as long as any student wishing to lead prayers for their stated religion is allowed to do so. This might prove problematic in getting the game started, but freedom of religion is important.

Now be nice, go back to the other thread and see if you can find a way to substantiate your OUTRAGEOUS LIE. that I hate what America Stands for.

Then you can go to the other thread and answr the even simpler question, why is it alright for you to lie? I really think it's your turn.

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:47 AM

So.....you don't believe in the first amendment then.

The first amendment states.....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So if you believe in seperation of church and state (which is not a quote of the forefathers that yoiu claim to support) to the extent that people cannot have a public prayer at a football game, you support putting limits on peoples free speech.

Since the Congress has made no law establishing a prayer in public schools it should be allowed.

Also, there's this little point.....

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Which is EXACTLY what the gov't is doing.

Sorry Maxi.

You lose.

mburbank

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:58 AM

Don't be sorry.

First, square these to statements.

Yours: So.....you don't believe in the first amendment then.

Mine: Everyone should be and IS allowed to pray. No one can stop you from praying.

at highschool football games, on subways, in congress, etc.

I offered my opinion that institutions of government ought not to endorse prayers, and I stated the reasons I thought they should not do so. I pointed out the pitfall you let yourself in for. I advocated no law, and in fact, I do not advocate any such law.

So you misunderstand me. Not a lie this time, just confusion caused by your eagerness.

Ask yourself these questions at your hypothetical football game. If prayers are to be lead, who will decide which people and which religions. Who will empower this body to make that decision? Should anyone who wishes to lead the crowd in prayer b allowed to do so bfore the game can start? Who will decide of the prayer, the religion and the leader are legitimate? Will you allow Satanist Prayer? If I present myself as a Mithrain and wish to lead my fellow Mithraains in prayer by drinking bulls blood, will this be allowed? And can the school provide cups without crossing any lines, as they have provided amplification for the assumedly christian speaker? How much time should be aloowed to each religion? How will speakers apply for the right to speak?

Since assume the crowd is there to watch football game, these question, though they surely strike you as absurd, might best be avoided by praying by yourself to yourself, which no one can ever stop you from doing.

sspadowsky

Mar 21st, 2003, 11:08 AM

Raygun, how does the First Amendment "directly oppose" separation of church and state?
________
WENDIE 99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 21st, 2003, 11:15 AM

"I offered my opinion that institutions of government ought not to endorse prayers, and I stated the reasons I thought they should not do so. I pointed out the pitfall you let yourself in for. I advocated no law, and in fact, I do not advocate any such law."

The pitfall is yours. If you claim to stand with the forefathers and The Constitution then you must believe in the 1st amendment (which you don't) and the 1st amendment says that gov't can make no law restricting the free exercise of religion (which they did) and that Congress shall not make a law respecting the establishment of a religion (which they didn't).

So, what's your problem?

"Ask yourself these questions at your hypothetical football game."

It's a true story Maxi. It happened in Texas.

Everything else is irrelevent. Let's focus on the words of our forefathers which you claim to support.

mburbank

Mar 21st, 2003, 11:42 AM

I will be happy to enter this thread and counter your points, such as they are, and point out all my points that you completely failed to adress when and if you return to the thread about Me "Hating What America Stands for" and answering the DIRECT QUESTIONS there in.

I might even respond if you answer my other recent DIRECT QUESTION, why you feel free to lie.

Until then, I must assume that your presence in all these other threads is merely obfuscation.

sspadowsky

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:05 PM

Raygun, how does the First Amendment "directly oppose" the separation of church and state?
________
Nexium Lawyer (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/nexium/)

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:11 PM

HAHAHAHHAHA!

You COWARD!

I completely stomped you and now YOU are hiding!!!

Shame on you.

You been proven to be Un-American.

mburbank

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:27 PM

Congratulations. Your last post was chock full of Christian Virtue.

It contained gloating and lies, two things Jesus loved.

In the meantime, why not go back to that other thread and state

step 1.) State something America stands for. Try to do it in a sentence
as in "America stands for ---------------." If that seems to hard, maybe it's becuase you're not clear on what America does stand for.

step 2.) Show how I hate it.

Give it a shot! You might find you like answering a direct question.

Come on, now. Be fair. I made a whole thread for you and even played along on this church and state thing and am more than willing to continue. But you have to do your part.

sspadowsky

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:35 PM

Raygun, how does the First Amendment "directly oppose" the separation of church and state?
________
How to use magic flight launch box (http://vaporizer.org)

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:41 PM

Because it's non of the gov't business as the 1st amendment points out.

Can you read, Genius?

sspadowsky

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:48 PM

Are you willfully fucking stupid, or can you just not help it?

If the government cannot make any law respecting religion, hten, by definition, the government (or "state") is separated from all religious institutions (collectively referred to as "the church").

So, again, how does the First Amendment "directly oppose" separation of church and state?
________
SUZUKI F50 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/4um/f10/suzuki-f50-1970-help-needed-1516/)

Bennett

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:48 PM

If it's so easy for you to see that the gov't should stay out of religion, why can't you see that the educational system should stay out of it as well? Pray to yourself, on your own time, there's no need to make a spectacle out of it.

Protoclown

Mar 21st, 2003, 12:55 PM

Congratulations. Your last post was chock full of Christian Virtue. It contained gloating and lies, two things Jesus loved.

:lol

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 21st, 2003, 01:23 PM

"If it's so easy for you to see that the gov't should stay out of religion, why can't you see that the educational system should stay out of it as well? Pray to yourself, on your own time, there's no need to make a spectacle out of it." - Bennett

Enlighten me? Where does it say that in the Constitution?

"If the government cannot make any law respecting religion, hten, by definition, the government (or "state") is separated from all religious institutions (collectively referred to as "the church")." - Spad

That's what I've BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG YOU DOLT!

....but it hasn't stopped people like you from taking those very words and using them to do just the opposite!!

sspadowsky

Mar 21st, 2003, 01:30 PM

You still haven't answered my question, dumbass. How does the First Amendment "directly oppose" the separation of church and state?
________
Gay Hardcore (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/625/hardcore/videos/1)

Bennett

Mar 21st, 2003, 01:33 PM

the public education system is a division of the "GOVERNMENT" or "STATE" unless you are at a private school that's membership depends on a certain religion, Then why can't you see why the two should be separate?

Is my question clearer now?

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 21st, 2003, 01:47 PM

Because it opposes the first amendment!!!!

Read the 1st and tell me where it says teachers can't pray with their students in school.

Bennett

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:16 PM

Where does it say that a teacher should have the right to exert religious influence over her students? Would you be singing the same tune if an elementary school teacher started each day off telling the children about all the reasons that God doesn't exist? Or what about if the teacher was Muslim?

Baalzamon

Mar 21st, 2003, 02:17 PM

Read the 1st and tell me where it says teachers can't pray with their students in school.

public school teachers are employees of, and thus, representatives of the state.

Private school teachers are not.

A teacher in a public school should not lead a prayer, because in doing so they are using their state funded position to endorse a religion, in a state building and forum. This implies that the government is favouring that religion specifically, which is something that the state should not do.

A private school teach however is not an employee of the state, and the institution they work for is not connected to the state. They and the school they work in are thus free to teach any religion they wish, as the parents of those children have chosen to place their children in that particular school, often for the reason of the particular religion the school, endorses.

I think I should say however, that a public school teacher should be free to establish a prayer service for those students that want it. This should take place outside of class time only. it should not cut into regular class time, and it should be done in what is effectively the teachers "off duty time". That teacher can stay late and do this unpaid, or sacrifice their lunch break for it.

None of this "anyone who doesnt want to participate can go sit in the corner and face the wall untill we are done" crap.

Anyone who wants to participate can stay inside at recess or come after school.

I remember my school did this back in elementary, and those students who wanted to be involved actually left the room to go elsewhere. It worked out quite well. There was absolutely no interference to everyone elses time and it didnt bother anyone who was not interested or of different beleifs.

punkgrrrlie10

Mar 21st, 2003, 03:03 PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Let's break down the first amendment kid (Raygun) into elements, shall we?

1. Congress shall make no law - that means no state/federal action imposing an affirmative duty on anyone, or prohibiting something as criminal.

2. respecting the establishment of religion - that means supporting religion

3. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - prohibiting someone from practicing their religion

4. or abriding the freedom of speech - prohibiting someone from speaking

5. or of the press - prohibiting someone from publishing thier speech.

6. or the right of people to peaceably assemble - hanging w/the homies but not buggin' anyone.

7. and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances - you are allowed to write letters and enact legislation to solve your problems w/the government

Summary: the gov't can't prohibit you or make you practice religion. So go practice, but you can't force anyone else to join you by state action - state action would be schools, teachers, politicians, and the anyone else on income paid through taxes.

Carnivore

Mar 21st, 2003, 03:15 PM

Once again, dumbass is breaking things down into black and white. There's a difference between a teacher giving students the option of praying and a teacher leading kids in prayer on a daily basis. If the kids want to go to a prayer club after school and pray with a teacher, that's fine. Having a Christian prayer daily at the start of homeroom is very different. The kids don't absolutely have to participate, but there is pressure to do so. The majority is Christian. Sitting down and not praying could invite ridicule, especially in the backwards-ass Bible Belt. Do you see the line being crossed in that case? Do you see the difference between allowing people to pray and endorsing a religion?

http://home.attbi.com/~martok/Reagan.JPG
"No, I don't because I'm a complete imbecile!"

mburbank

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:21 PM

Kudos to our I-mockery lawyer, punk girlie.

Kudos also to Bennet. think you should answer that one, becuase it will force you to actually confront some of the gray areas in your questions to me which you've thuis far refused to recognize.

What if the teacher wanted to lead a little "Ala Ahkbar"? Would that be all right with you? Suppose none of the students were Muslim? Still alright? Okay, how about say, 1/5 of the Students? Okay, %50 Muslim classroom, it's okay now, right? If an irate parent killed the teacher, would you allow prosecution of the murder as a hate crime?

kellychaos

Mar 21st, 2003, 04:27 PM

I can see Ronnie's lips move when he reads the Constitution ... teehee! :)

Protoclown

Mar 21st, 2003, 10:42 PM

As a representative of I-Mockery, I would like to lead everyone who has posted in this thread in a prayer.

ALL HAIL LORD SATAN OUR DARK AND EVIL MASTER, MAY PEACE COME TO THE MIDDLE EAST AND MAY GEORGE BUSH AND HIS ILK BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, AND LET US DROWN BABIES IN GOATS' BLOOD AND SPANK THEM IN THE FACE WITH BIBLES. FOREVER AND EVER AMEN.

I would like to thank everyone in this thread, particularly RONNIE RAYGUN, for participating unwillingly in this prayer.

Have a nice day!

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 22nd, 2003, 07:24 AM

A Christian wouldn't say such things.

When I get a break...I'll break it down for those of you who wish to make up your own version of the law.

mburbank

Mar 22nd, 2003, 09:25 AM

But if Proto were a public school teacher, you would support his right to lead his class in that prayer, becuase that's what the law means. Right?

It's a yes or no question, black or white,

WOULD YOU SUPPORT HIS RIGHT OR NOT?!

Protoclown

Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:30 PM

Yeah, Ronnie. If you ever have children and they go to school and are taught history by a Satanist, who wants to lead their class in a Satanic prayer, then by your version of the law, the teacher would be prefectly able to do it.

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:34 PM

If there were Satanist students in the class that wanted to pray with the satanist teacher, that would not interfere with the first amendment.

kellychaos

Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:46 PM

If there were Satanist students in the class that wanted to pray with the satanist teacher, that would not interfere with the first amendment.

Yeah, if it was a perochial school of satanists. Really!! Are you still not getting this? :/

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:59 PM

"Let's break down the first amendment kid (Raygun) into elements, shall we?"

You can try, but I will present a better job of it.

"1. Congress shall make no law - that means no state/federal action imposing an affirmative duty on anyone, or prohibiting something as criminal." - Punk

"First, some common sense and the dictionary, in which we can all find a common reference to the words themselves. What do they mean?

Congress: Common sense. We know who this is. This is the body of men and women we elect to represent us in the Federal Government that propose new laws in the form of Bills. Our elected representatives.

shall make no law: Common sense again. That's pretty easy to understand as well. No law means no law - Not any, not one, none. There's nothing ambiguous about that. So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law (about something). About what?" - Buck

"2. respecting the establishment of religion - that means supporting religion" - Punk

"respecting: With respect to. In respect of. Regarding. Simple. Regarding something. Regarding what? Now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something). Not only something in particular, but even something in respect to (that something). What is that something?

an establishment of: This is not a reference to a place, like a bar or a restaurant you might call an establishment. It is not a reference to a building, not even a church building. It is the condition or fact of being established. In this case, by law. So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something) that will establish (that something) by law. What is that something?

religion: Notice it does not say church. It does not say a religion. It does not say a particular religion. It does not say one religion over others. It is a single word: Religion. What is religion? Here it is: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. It is all-inclusive." - Buck

"3. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - prohibiting someone from practicing their religion"

Exactly, and that's exactly what the gov't does under the guise of "seperation of church and state".

"Summary: the gov't can't prohibit you or make you practice religion. So go practice, but you can't force anyone else to join you by state action - state action would be schools, teachers, politicians, and the anyone else on income paid through taxes"

You're right. I never said anything about forcing anyone to pray. It fact, that's impossible.

The forefathers were smart enough to say what they meant. Stop trying to read something else into it. They understood the importance of being very clear in their statements afterall, they were masters of the english language.

Visit here.

Just read it and find a flaw.

http://www.buckcash.com/opinions/1stamendment.htm

kellychaos

Mar 22nd, 2003, 01:13 PM

Bleh! ... Diarhea ... you're making my common sense hurt ... it IS simply NOT that difficult to understand ... really. :/

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 22nd, 2003, 01:32 PM

Apparently it is for some of you.

punkgrrrlie10

Mar 22nd, 2003, 04:51 PM

You do realize I am in law school and my break down is taken directly from supreme court decisions dating back to the founding forefathers genius.

And your link is to someone's opinion. Not going to have much precedent when interpreting the ACTUAL law as opposed to Ronnie Raygun law. And to say it's liberal or conservative interpretation is Bull basically b/c the supreme court we have right now is the most conservative court that has been seen in years and they are striking this crap down left and right.

Jeanette X

Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:48 PM

If there were Satanist students in the class that wanted to pray with the satanist teacher, that would not interfere with the first amendment.

So I take it you wouldn't mind you had a Christian child in that class, and she asked the entire class (all Satanists except for your child in this scenario) to stand up and pray to the dark lord?
You really would not mind a teacher led prayer to Satan with the entire class participating?

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 23rd, 2003, 11:07 AM

"You do realize I am in law school and my break down is taken directly from supreme court decisions dating back to the founding forefathers genius." - Punk

I don't what anyone else has said except for the forefathers. We are not talking about a few liberal judges reinventing the law. That has already been established. ....... try to catch up..... . We are talking about the intentions of the forefathers who were masters of the english language and meant exactly what they wrote. Once again, let's go over what the forefathers said.

.......................

"Congress: Common sense. We know who this is. This is the body of men and women we elect to represent us in the Federal Government that propose new laws in the form of Bills. Our elected representatives.

shall make no law: Common sense again. That's pretty easy to understand as well. No law means no law - Not any, not one, none. There's nothing ambiguous about that. So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law (about something). About what?" - Buck

"respecting: With respect to. In respect of. Regarding. Simple. Regarding something. Regarding what? Now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something). Not only something in particular, but even something in respect to (that something). What is that something?

an establishment of: This is not a reference to a place, like a bar or a restaurant you might call an establishment. It is not a reference to a building, not even a church building. It is the condition or fact of being established. In this case, by law. So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something) that will establish (that something) by law. What is that something?

religion: Notice it does not say church. It does not say a religion. It does not say a particular religion. It does not say one religion over others. It is a single word: Religion. What is religion? Here it is: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. It is all-inclusive." - Buck

..............................

"And your link is to someone's opinion."

Yes, and I happen to share it, and you have your own....so what?

"Not going to have much precedent when interpreting the ACTUAL law as opposed to Ronnie Raygun law."

It's not my law. It the law of the land so say the forefathers not some liberal activist judge who wants to re-invent it.

"And to say it's liberal or conservative interpretation is Bull basically b/c the supreme court we have right now is the most conservative court that has been seen in years and they are striking this crap down left and right."

It's just now gotten to the point where it's moderate. If Bush stays in office until 2008, we'll have a hispanic Conservative on the court that will sway the balance towards what the forefathers intended.

VinceZeb

Mar 23rd, 2003, 11:59 AM

I'd rather stay out of this, but the way liberal laws are passed are by judges (Roe vs Wade is a HUGE example of this) instead of already protected by law.

Conseratives respect the Constitution and Libertarians go by what it says pretty much no matter what. They don't need slanted judges to rule for whats already there. Liberals need to, as they do with anything they touch, alter and change the meanings.

Wasn't it Algore that says the Constitution was a living document?

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 23rd, 2003, 12:36 PM

Yeah!

Which means it's O.K. to change the things that make this country great.

Libs want to defeat what makes America great.

Jeanette X

Mar 23rd, 2003, 01:14 PM

You still haven't answered my question Ronnie.

punkgrrrlie10

Mar 23rd, 2003, 03:04 PM

I suggest both of you look at the composition of the supreme court right now and the decisions they've handed down on the 1st amendment b/c you obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about.

VinceZeb

Mar 23rd, 2003, 04:08 PM

Actually, I DO know what I am talking about, and I don't need to go to law school to know about the law. Considering the fact the church vs state debate is something that I consider a vast source of information and views, I study it. But what I said is the truth.

Govt cant respect an establishment of religion. If a religion is established as being a part of the govt, that is illegal. But the govt can not infringe on my right to be Roman Catholic.

The govt stays out of religion. That was the whole point of the article, because the Church of England was made a STATE church by King Henry VIII because the Pope would not grant him a divorce from his wife because she would not produce a male heir. Our founders wanted whoever lived in the country to be able to worship however they wanted, but would not infringe on those rights. They would also not regonize a state religion. That is what it says. You can examine it all you want. Our founding fathers PRAYED during sessions of govt. Go back in time and tell them that they were wrong, please. And while your back there, pick me up some cheap gold and other precious metals.

mburbank

Mar 24th, 2003, 10:30 AM

Vince!! You're Roman Catholic? What do you think of your air head pussy Popes anti war stance? Isn't it rough on you disagreeing with him when he's Christs Viccar on earth?

And Naldo. I am shocked to find you endorce Satanist Prayer in our schools.

Bennett

Mar 24th, 2003, 01:10 PM

Our founding fathers PRAYED during sessions of govt. Go back in time and tell them that they were wrong, please. And while your back there, pick me up some cheap gold and other precious metals.

Yes, and pick up some slaves because guess what, the founding fathers had those too!!! Times change drastically, and to believe that we are unable to change or reinterpret laws written 200 years ago to adjust them to those times is assinine.

kellychaos

Mar 24th, 2003, 01:51 PM

In this case, by law. So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something) that will establish (that something) by law. What is that something?

Here is the crux of it. School districts have elected school boards. Could that be an elected representative to which the refer? OK, iffy to some people but I believe they do fit the definition of elected representative. Teachers are not elected but are state employees and do respresent the government and they are, to some degree, under the regulations put forth by the school board (elected representatives). When they talk about establishing a religion one interpretation of this could be that the teacher, as a representative of the government, cannot introduce lessons which would instill in the minds (establish) of students favortism of ANY religion. In other words, to be neutral in that regard because it is not a part of education unless you are at a parochial school that endorses THAT religion. Additionally, you know as well as I do that if public school teachers started talking about the Jewish, Muslim, or even pagan religions during the time the children were at grade school age, the ultra-conservatives would have a hissy fit. Thusly, the schools are already religiously slanted by ommission ... that's certainly establishing something in the children's heads, don't you think? Add to that national christian holidays which they decorate public schools with every year (Easter, Christmas, ect). I have yet to see a Chanuka decoration in a public school. I have yet to see a school teach philosophy and/or classical Greek logic at the grade school level. It's not religious but it may actually lead to some religious questions that some adults can't answer and we can't have that. Can you see why people of other religions might feel shat upon Ronnie? Schools are already Christian skewed. You either have all religions represented if you inisist on religious education or none and since the Constitution says not to establish any religion, my vote would be an interpretation of NONE ... neutral ... NOW do you get it?

P.S. I hate you :)

punkgrrrlie10

Mar 24th, 2003, 02:36 PM

So if you believe in seperation of church and state (which is not a quote of the forefathers that yoiu claim to support) to the extent that people cannot have a public prayer at a football game, you support putting limits on peoples free speech.

Since the Congress has made no law establishing a prayer in public schools it should be allowed.

I think you are missing the point of practical application here. In order to allow prayer in a public setting, a time would have to be instituted in order to have it, thus enacting and having state action. A kid who doesn't want to take his math test would basically say "oh yeah, I have to pray right now" and that disrupts the process of actual learning which the state is charged with doing in a public education system. THat's what people are paying their taxes for. If people want their kids to pray so badly, they send them to private schools.

And it's nice that you agree w/that person's OPINION, and that it reflects your OPINION, but that doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation of the 1st amendment nor the application of it to the states through the 14th. You can think that burning babies is a great thing, but that doesn't make it law.

VinceZeb

Mar 25th, 2003, 01:54 AM

Yes, and pick up some slaves because guess what, the founding fathers had those too!!! Times change drastically, and to believe that we are unable to change or reinterpret laws written 200 years ago to adjust them to those times is assinine.

So what you are saying is that the Bill of Rights, as per Algore, are a "living document", which means it can change? Well, lets change it that we take away your freedom to dissent because it's bad for the Bush admin. Lets take away the freedom of religion from Muslims, because up to 10% of them want to kill us. Lets use the Patriot Act to take away our privacy. See where this is going? Down a road to a communist state at the extreme level of change.

And that 2nd Amendment, its just for barbarians. We have "grown past" and "evolved" as a society, so we dont need guns for war. Guns are BAD! >:

Now of course, the taking away of guns is what allowed Chairman Mao to do his "Great Leap Foward" and re-educate the masses of China. Killing many due to violence and starvation, btw,but at least they didnt have those guns that are guarneteed to us by a dusty 200+ year old rule that should be changed.

VinceZeb

Mar 25th, 2003, 01:57 AM

Yes max, the Pope is against the war. The pope always has to promote peace that is why he is the Pope. But in the Catechism of the Church, this war with Iraq falls under the Just War provisions. I REALLY should know where this is in there, considering I studied it for two years before I decided not to become a priest. Guess Ill have to look it up on line again or drag out my copy.

kellychaos

Mar 25th, 2003, 04:25 PM

Yes max, the Pope is against the war. The pope always has to promote peace that is why he is the Pope. But in the Catechism of the Church, this war with Iraq falls under the Just War provisions.

ALL Popes are ALWAYS against war and the would NEVER endorse a war against muslims. :rolleyes

P.S. Just a little fuel for the fire. Y'all are welcome to take it from here. :)

mburbank

Mar 25th, 2003, 04:57 PM

Okay, forgive me if your resume is starting to strecth credability, here, Vince...

You studied to be a priest
You had a beautiful black girlfriend
You have a good chance to be an officer on a nuclear submarine
You have an offer from a chembio unit...

Since you studied to be a priest, shouldn't your disagreement with the Pope over the 'just' nature of this war be more meaningful for you? I mean, it's not like the Pope is a kind of "Agree with me or don't as far as interpretation goes, I mean, sure, I'm the Pope, but hey, it's free country."

Not that you can't have a different opinion, lots of Catholics I know differ with the Pope here and there about, say, Homosexuality and Abortion Rights and such, but even they don't say

"Oh, sure he SAYS that, he HAS to He's the POPE! But it' not a very big deal"

Did this differing with the Pope cause you to loose any sleep or question your judgement at all, or examine it? And how do you find your desire for "CRAZY motherfucker" generals making the enemy "Shit in their Pants" squares with your Catholascism. Your kind of a
Crusades type catholic, aren't you? Are you going to get off the bus there, opr ride it all the way to "Inquisition" type Catholic?

kellychaos

Mar 25th, 2003, 05:02 PM

Your kind of a Crusades type catholic, aren't you? Are you going to get off the bus there, opr ride it all the way to "Inquisition" type Catholic?

NOW we're gettin' somewhere. Turn it up Max!! :)

punkgrrrlie10

Mar 25th, 2003, 06:51 PM

So what you are saying is that the Bill of Rights, as per Algore, are a "living document", which means it can change? Well, lets change it that we take away your freedom to dissent because it's bad for the Bush admin. Lets take away the freedom of religion from Muslims, because up to 10% of them want to kill us. Lets use the Patriot Act to take away our privacy. See where this is going? Down a road to a communist state at the extreme level of change

The Patriot Act already has done this numb nuts. Didn't you read about the denial of due process for american citizens captured on foreign soil? Hello, are you paying attn. to what's going on in the real world or do you just listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bush and eat peanut butter for entertainment?

Jeanette X

Mar 25th, 2003, 07:13 PM

Ronnie Raygun

Mar 27th, 2003, 10:53 AM

All you have to do to understand the 1st amendment is to understand the words.

If you people don't want to understand the meaning of the word "Congress" that's your problem.

"Yes, and pick up some slaves because guess what, the founding fathers had those too!!! Times change drastically, and to believe that we are unable to change or reinterpret laws written 200 years ago to adjust them to those times is assinine." - Bennett

Where did the forefathers say that it was O.K. to own slaves? Where is it written? In fact The Declaration of Independance says just the opposite......"All men are created equal.."

Where ALL the forefathers perfect? Not by a long shot. Did they ALL own slaves....no. So you will never be able to cheapen their accomplishments with that lame arguement.