My Pet Peave....seperation of church and state

[Joe from Florence]

The reason this has always been a pet peave of mine is because of the ignorance surrounding the meaning of the seperation of church and state.
There are too many people who have no clue what it means...even our own politicians have no clue what seperation of church and state actually means.
The reason the seperation of church and state exists is simply to say the government can not force the people to be affiliated with one religion. thats it, simple as that.....when this country was formed the fore-fathers did not want the same thing that existed in england in the early days and that is to have the King create his own religion and force every citizen to be a member of that church.
Thats why i get so upset when idiot groups scream seperation of church and state when they demand things such as taking the phrase "One nation under god" out of the pledge of allegance, or "In god We Trust" off of money, or take the 10 commandments out of courthouses that display the same etc. The sad thing is our own justice system doesn't understand what it truly means and falls prey to these groups who demand anything that referes to god in anyway be banned from everything.
Separation of church and state is a political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political) and legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal) doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine) which states that government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) and religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) institutions are to be kept separate and independent of one another.
Just wanted to vent

[biggie]

I feel you brother

[Bengal07]

The reason this has always been a pet peave of mine is because of the ignorance surrounding the meaning of the seperation of church and state.
There are too many people who have no clue what it means...even our own politicians have no clue what seperation of church and state actually means.
The reason the seperation of church and state exists is simply to say the government can not force the people to be affiliated with one religion. thats it, simple as that.....when this country was formed the fore-fathers did not want the same thing that existed in england in the early days and that is to have the King create his own religion and force every citizen to be a member of that church.
Thats why i get so upset when idiot groups scream seperation of church and state when they demand things such as taking the phrase "One nation under god" out of the pledge of allegance, or "In god We Trust" off of money, or take the 10 commandments out of courthouses that display the same etc. The sad thing is our own justice system doesn't understand what it truly means and falls prey to these groups who demand anything that referes to god in anyway be banned from everything.
Just wanted to vent
God Bless you Joe[H][Y]

[jamiethelanky]

The seperation that Joe speaks of is all well and good; but is it held up? There is far too much political weight behind the Christian church in the USA and it really isn't fair.
The rights of people are being trodden on because people listen to the nutjobs from the South. If a woman wants an abortion - let her have one. There is enough of a consensus that it isn't "murder" for it to be deemed acceptable. If two men (or two women, for that matter) that love each other a lot want to register their partnership as something more special; they should be allowed to.

[Phall2112]

Youre so right joe. The way the country is now, is far from the founding fathers invisioned. You know what else makes me mad. States rights, or the lack there of.

[Hachi Go]

The seperation that Joe speaks of is all well and good; but is it held up? There is far too much political weight behind the Christian church in the USA and it really isn't fair.
The rights of people are being trodden on because people listen to the nutjobs from the South. If a woman wants an abortion - let her have one. There is enough of a consensus that it isn't "murder" for it to be deemed acceptable. If two men (or two women, for that matter) that love each other a lot want to register their partnership as something more special; they should be allowed to.


Kind of like how your Nation went out of their way to pass "special laws and rights" for the GL community yet discriminates against Catholics holding office and won't repeal a law from 1829?

seems double standardish to me.

[Danno]

K, I have to play devil's advocate here a bit. (HAHA! Get it?! DEVIL's?! its funny cuz we are talking about religion [:D] )


Phall,

Maybe, but the founding fathers also envisioned a country where:

A black man only counted as 3/5 of a person, was still a slave, and had no right to vote.
Still has slavery (the actual slave TRADE was not outlawed till 1808, 20 yrs later)
Women has no right to vote.
A president that is only elected by "elite electors"So maybe it's not too bad that we are somewhat far from the original vision. Times change, people change.


also:

While the government may not explicitly force you to follow one religion or another, when you start creating legislature based on a certain religion's beliefs, you are indirectly forcing a person to live by that religion's precepts.

Jamie makes a good point relating to this about abortion and homosexual marriage. Both of these issues are strongly opposed by many religious groups, but that doesn't mean that it is ok to remove that for those who believe otherwise. Many do not believe abortion is murder, and many do not believe marriage has to be between a man and a woman. Why tell these people they can believe what they want, but they have to live how someone else believe things to be?

[Phall2112]

You have some good points danno. The founding fathers werent perfect. But they had an idea, for a government of the people. And we already have laws that are based from christian values. Also a republic cannot survive without a moral population. at least thats what i beleive, you dont have to be relegious, but at least have a moral compass.

[calell83]

Joe I agree..
Laws should not be influenced by religion.
The phrase under god shoudl nto be removed from the Anthem. A. the majority of this country believes in God, Either Christian, Jewish or otherwise.

[Turk88]

The seperation that Joe speaks of is all well and good; but is it held up? There is far too much political weight behind the Christian church in the USA and it really isn't fair.
The rights of people are being trodden on because people listen to the nutjobs from the South. If a woman wants an abortion - let her have one. There is enough of a consensus that it isn't "murder" for it to be deemed acceptable. If two men (or two women, for that matter) that love each other a lot want to register their partnership as something more special; they should be allowed to.


The problem is that there is not enough consensus on these issues like you say there are. If that was the case then gay marriage and abortions wouldn't be such highly debated topics..noone debates anything that most people agree with!
Also, to say "nutjobs in the south" is highly stereotypical. I am surprised that a gay man would use such a stereotype. There are thousands of people that are harcore christian fundamentalists that are not from the south and there are also plenty of people from the south that could give a rats arese less.
I am quite shocked by your post! If I were to say something about gay marriage and mentioned that the only people pushing for it are the queens that live in San Fran, would you think that is rude and stereotypical?

[Bengaltime]

Turk is right Jamie. It's a trap we fall into that makes us generalize people from a certain area of the country based upon those there who make themselves vocally known.
It's easy enough to do...

[Ericw712]

While the government may not explicitly force you to follow one religion or another, when you start creating legislature based on a certain religion's beliefs, you are indirectly forcing a person to live by that religion's precepts.

Jamie makes a good point relating to this about abortion and homosexual marriage. Both of these issues are strongly opposed by many religious groups, but that doesn't mean that it is ok to remove that for those who believe otherwise. Many do not believe abortion is murder, and many do not believe marriage has to be between a man and a woman. Why tell these people they can believe what they want, but they have to live how someone else believe things to be?

The fact of the matter is this, our nation is a representative republic not a democracy. If the ammount of Congressmen and women who represent pro-lifers or anti-homosexual marriage is greater than the ammount of Congresspeople who represent the other side then our government has served its purpose. Someone can be "religous" and think abortion is perfectly fine, just like a "non-religous" person can believe that the legal benefits of marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. As a nation we are governed by the rules set forth by the individuals we elect. If you want change, vote for the candidate (not party) that best represents your beliefs.

[Jom112]

While the government may not explicitly force you to follow one religion or another, when you start creating legislature based on a certain religion's beliefs, you are indirectly forcing a person to live by that religion's precepts.

Jamie makes a good point relating to this about abortion and homosexual marriage. Both of these issues are strongly opposed by many religious groups, but that doesn't mean that it is ok to remove that for those who believe otherwise. Many do not believe abortion is murder, and many do not believe marriage has to be between a man and a woman. Why tell these people they can believe what they want, but they have to live how someone else believe things to be?

The fact of the matter is this, our nation is a representative republic not a democracy. If the ammount of Congressmen and women who represent pro-lifers or anti-homosexual marriage is greater than the ammount of Congresspeople who represent the other side then our government has served its purpose. Someone can be "religous" and think abortion is perfectly fine, just like a "non-religous" person can believe that the legal benefits of marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. As a nation we are governed by the rules set forth by the individuals we elect. If you want change, vote for the candidate (not party) that best represents your beliefs.

Well said, Eric.
Although it is sad how in the 21st century we still have racists and bigots holding down top government positions...

[jamiethelanky]

The seperation that Joe speaks of is all well and good; but is it held up? There is far too much political weight behind the Christian church in the USA and it really isn't fair.
The rights of people are being trodden on because people listen to the nutjobs from the South. If a woman wants an abortion - let her have one. There is enough of a consensus that it isn't "murder" for it to be deemed acceptable. If two men (or two women, for that matter) that love each other a lot want to register their partnership as something more special; they should be allowed to.


Kind of like how your Nation went out of their way to pass "special laws and rights" for the GL community yet discriminates against Catholics holding office and won't repeal a law from 1829?

seems double standardish to me.



I'm not happy about that as well... but maybe they need to kick up a fuss about it.

[jamiethelanky]

The seperation that Joe speaks of is all well and good; but is it held up? There is far too much political weight behind the Christian church in the USA and it really isn't fair.
The rights of people are being trodden on because people listen to the nutjobs from the South. If a woman wants an abortion - let her have one. There is enough of a consensus that it isn't "murder" for it to be deemed acceptable. If two men (or two women, for that matter) that love each other a lot want to register their partnership as something more special; they should be allowed to.


The problem is that there is not enough consensus on these issues like you say there are. If that was the case then gay marriage and abortions wouldn't be such highly debated topics..noone debates anything that most people agree with!
Also, to say "nutjobs in the south" is highly stereotypical. I am surprised that a gay man would use such a stereotype. There are thousands of people that are harcore christian fundamentalists that are not from the south and there are also plenty of people from the south that could give a rats arese less.
I am quite shocked by your post! If I were to say something about gay marriage and mentioned that the only people pushing for it are the queens that live in San Fran, would you think that is rude and stereotypical?

OK... maybe I was a little wrong on that. But you get media driven terms like 'Bible belt' that refer to it. Truth is; the overriding support for this does come from the South; as, I am willing to accept; the support for more Liberal issues is very metrocentric: the bigger the city generally the bigger the support.

[Ericw712]

Its also sad how personal beliefs are automatically tied to a particular religion or political party. I consider myself a subscriber to the teachings of Jesus Christ so automatically people assume I am a republican Christian who hates gays and loves Bush (tee he he...). The only thing I hate is painting unique individuals with a common brush. I do not align myself with most conservative Christians, I also am finding less and less in common with either of the main political parties.
I actually had a blog entry (http://ericw712.blogspot.com/2007/01/socially-conservative-wout-suppressed.html) about this label dilemma...
Just remember the ideal form of government is a Benevolent Dictatorship.

[Ericw712]

The seperation that Joe speaks of is all well and good; but is it held up? There is far too much political weight behind the Christian church in the USA and it really isn't fair.
The rights of people are being trodden on because people listen to the nutjobs from the South. If a woman wants an abortion - let her have one. There is enough of a consensus that it isn't "murder" for it to be deemed acceptable. If two men (or two women, for that matter) that love each other a lot want to register their partnership as something more special; they should be allowed to.


The problem is that there is not enough consensus on these issues like you say there are. If that was the case then gay marriage and abortions wouldn't be such highly debated topics..noone debates anything that most people agree with!
Also, to say "nutjobs in the south" is highly stereotypical. I am surprised that a gay man would use such a stereotype. There are thousands of people that are harcore christian fundamentalists that are not from the south and there are also plenty of people from the south that could give a rats arese less.
I am quite shocked by your post! If I were to say something about gay marriage and mentioned that the only people pushing for it are the queens that live in San Fran, would you think that is rude and stereotypical?

OK... maybe I was a little wrong on that. But you get media driven terms like 'Bible belt' that refer to it. Truth is; the overriding support for this does come from the South; as, I am willing to accept; the support for more Liberal issues is very metrocentric: the bigger the city generally the bigger the support.

But the stereotype goes deeper. Just because someone lives in the south or the "Bible Belt" doesn't mean they are representing an entire religion, much like Islamic terrorists do not represent their entire religion.
Just because someone lives in the south makes them no more a Christian than me standing in my garage makes me a car.
Any church or group claiming to be "Christian" may or may not be aligned with the teachings of Jesus Christ. As a whole, I believe blanket assumptions, in general, are a bad thing [;)]

[jamiethelanky]

Yeah, I'm sorry that I got pulled into an absentminded labelling. I thoughtlessly regurgitated something that I shouldn't have.

[Ericw712]

Yeah, I'm sorry that I got pulled into an absentminded labelling. I thoughtlessly regurgitated something that I shouldn't have.
No problem here Jamie... I know according to your blog you're trying to be a stereotype breaker too. [Y]

[Dr.Johnny Fever]

I applaud you Joe, for stirring up a little fire and debate on the boards. My take on it is that there should not be any compromise if there is seperation. Putting "in god we trust" on money is compromise. There are a lot of atheist and agnostic people out there that are having these things pushed in their faces, maybe these little references out there offend them. I personally like the tradition side of it all, but I wouldn't want any religion that's not my own be made unescapable in a society I live in.

[toyota24]

As an agnostic I have to say I have no problem with "InGod We Trust" or "One Nation Under God" (even though it wasn't originally in the pledge). They don't offend or bother me and I often feel like my ideological bretheren do more harm than good to people like me when they pursue such petty garbage. That said, I have lots of problems with mixing religion and government. First off, no vouchers for kids to go to private schools. I don't want my taxes going to pay for someone elses kid's religious indoctrination. Indoctrinate them in your home like everyone else. Also, things get real scary geopolitically when you have a hard core religious ideologue running the country during a war in a part of the world that is a traditional religious hotbed. I want to be comfortable knowing my president is operating with the best interests of the nation and it's security, not the prophecies and end times doctrines of his/her faith. I'm not saying that's what's going on here, but the thought has crossed my mind. If his God is coming back to restore righteousness and the beginning of this process begins with war in some far away desert, how do I know he won't ferment it out of faith rather than avoid it out of foresight and calculation?

[Danno]

While the government may not explicitly force you to follow one religion or another, when you start creating legislature based on a certain religion's beliefs, you are indirectly forcing a person to live by that religion's precepts.*

Jamie makes a good point relating to this about abortion and homosexual marriage.* Both of these issues are strongly opposed by many religious groups, but that doesn't mean that it is ok to remove that for those who believe otherwise.* Many do not believe abortion is murder, and many do not believe marriage has to be between a man and a woman.* Why tell these people they can believe what they want, but they have to live how someone else believe things to be?

The fact of the matter is this, our nation is a representative republic not a democracy.* If the ammount of Congressmen and women who represent pro-lifers or anti-homosexual marriage is greater than the ammount of Congresspeople who represent the other side then our government has served its purpose.* Someone can be "religous" and think abortion is perfectly fine, just like a "non-religous" person can believe that the legal benefits of*marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman.* As a nation we are governed by the rules set forth by the individuals we elect.* If you want change, vote for the candidate (not party) that best represents your beliefs.
*clap clap clap*Very good point, eric! [:)]and I definitely agree on the candidate part. I actually had a discussion with my g/f about that. I like candidates that typically stick to their guns, not flip flop left and right just to get voted back in. You don't see it much on the federal level, but I know of a few on the state level here in VA.EDIT - flip flop left and right is not meant to denote political left and right, its just a saying :)

[Steely_J]

Church and State is like a Peanutbutter and Jelly Sandwitch. Youcan pull both apart if you want, but they're still going to be mixed oneach slice.

Why can't we all just eat lunch?

[SnapCount80]

Church and State is like a Peanutbutter and Jelly Sandwitch. Youcan pull both apart if you want, but they're still going to be mixed oneach slice.

Why can't we all just eat lunch?


Because there is a recall on the Salmonella tainted Peanutbutter. [:D][;)]

[Joe from Florence]

I applaud you Joe, for stirring up a little fire and debate on the boards. My take on it is that there should not be any compromise if there is seperation. Putting "in god we trust" on money is compromise. There are a lot of atheist and agnostic people out there that are having these things pushed in their faces, maybe these little references out there offend them. I personally like the tradition side of it all, but I wouldn't want any religion that's not my own be made unescapable in a society I live in.

Thanks Johnny,
But having "In God We Trust" on money is not pushing any religion onto anyone....it's not forcing any person to follow a religion, it's not pursecuting any religion belief either....if your athiest or whatever having those words is not forcing anyone to believe in anyone. People must remember what this country was founded on, and a huge part was freedom of religion......the pilgrims came over here to get away from religious pursecution so they could worship freely.....the fore fathers knew that and wanted this to be a country that any religion could be followed, not just one or none.
so wether someone is atihiest or not, no one is forcing them to pick a religion...they are still free to do as they wish with no penalty at all. It's the ones who fight stuff like "In god we trust" that haven't a clue about what the rite is in the first place.
Wether people want to admit it or not, this country was founded on the belief of a god....that being said, no one is forced to worship in any certain manner....but it's when people try to stop others from worshiping is when i have a serious problem.
It's like TV....you don't like a show, change the channel......you don't like a nativity scene at christmas then just walk on by....you don't like a manora, then walk on by.....it's the ones that stand up and protest these things i have to sit back and laugh at because they just don't get it.
which brings me back to the in god we trust thing.....God isnot a religion and i think that is where people get the issue confused, you either believe in a mightier power or you don't, but to believe in god is not a type of religion.....it's a thing. So for those that don't believe in God, it's no difference than saying In Hawaii I trust, or In Ponies I trust.....it's not a religion, it's simply a belief is all....if a $10 bill said "In bigfoot I trust" i'd wouldn't throw it away...i'd spend it on a beer at the game just like i would any other currency i had.

[oasiswr]

Ok now you have a statue of the "Ten commandment in a court room" displayed (Christianity symbol). Does that not protray a symbol to one particular religion? Last I checked churchs do not have symbols of a golden eagle located in any location within property. So why should we have their symbols in our government buildings at all? You don't see Coke logo sitting on Pepsi product unless they are aligned with each other.

Before the 50's it didn't have the " In God we trust" phrase, but for some reason they added it to every bill after. It still poses a pretty interesting question as to why the need to add this to future currancy.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-4/21470/1BILL004.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-4/21470/1BILL005.jpg

On a seperate note doesn't it seem rather inappropiate to even place any reference to God when in fact it states on the front " this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"? Heck when you think about it that very bill could have been used to buy a bag of crack, extortion from a individuals from a illegal gambling debt, used to snort a line of cocaine, bought explicit illegal sex crimes, stolen from a man who was murdered or hit man purchase (blood money). In which case totally offends the whole statement of "In God we trust". If I was deeply religous person I would be personally offended to have that phrase on the currancy in the first place. Since anything with reference to God used in that way would be shameful and untolerable considering usage. If money is the root of all evil, then why the heck should God's name be on it?

[Joe from Florence]

no oasiswr, you proved the point i've been trying to make all along.....in god we trust on a dollar bill is not forcing anyone to follow a certain religion.....but just like you and many others, you all have misunderstood what seperation means. that is the problem with this society, people think seperation means no one can have anything religious in public when that is not what it means at all.
If the dollar bill said in god we trust and followed by only christians can use this money as legal tender currency...then it would be what your talking about, but it doesn't therefore it isn't intruding on anyones rites.

[Whatever]

no oasiswr, you proved the point i've been trying to make all along.....in god we trust on a dollar bill is not forcing anyone to follow a certain religion.....but just like you and many others, you all have misunderstood what seperation means. that is the problem with this society, people think seperation means no one can have anything religious in public when that is not what it means at all.
If the dollar bill said in god we trust and followed by only christians can use this money as legal tender currency...then it would be what your talking about, but it doesn't therefore it isn't intruding on anyones rites.

Here's what gets me. Religous people will say that having the 10 commandments in courthouses,having "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill,and having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience is no big deal. Some other group comes along and says,"Well,if it's not a big deal,then take it off." Then the religous get upset and start fighting it. Well,if it's not a big deal,like they say in the first place,then why do they protest these things so much? Obviously,it is a big deal if they're willing to put that much time and effort into protecting it. This is religous hippocracy,plain and simple. It's not a big deal if we're getting our way,and other's should just grin and bear it,but if we're not getting our way,then it is a big deal.

[oasiswr]

Apparently some person in the South around 1863 demanded that "In God we trust" be placed on currency just to appear to future generations not to be heathens.

The letter written during that time.

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriouslyoverlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form onour coins.
You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were notshattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries ofsucceeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were aheathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess ofliberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed withthe words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crownedwith a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its fieldstars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of thebars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.
This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizencould object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism.This would place us openly under the Divine protection we havepersonally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame indisowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.
To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.


Secretary of the Treasury to the Philadelphia mint (letter)
Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in thestrength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our peoplein God should be declared on our national coins.You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delaywith a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible thisnational recognition.



It appeared on coins first but the first dollar wasn't printed with this motto until 1957. Seriously how long do they think a paper dollar will last anyway in circulation?



http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

[jmccracky]

no oasiswr, you proved the point i've been trying to make all along.....in god we trust on a dollar bill is not forcing anyone to follow a certain religion.....but just like you and many others, you all have misunderstood what seperation means. that is the problem with this society, people think seperation means no one can have anything religious in public when that is not what it means at all.
If the dollar bill said in god we trust and followed by only christians can use this money as legal tender currency...then it would be what your talking about, but it doesn't therefore it isn't intruding on anyones rites.

Here's what gets me. Religous people will say that having the 10 commandments in courthouses,having "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill,and having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience is no big deal. Some other group comes along and says,"Well,if it's not a big deal,then take it off." Then the religous get upset and start fighting it. Well,if it's not a big deal,like they say in the first place,then why do they protest these things so much? Obviously,it is a big deal if they're willing to put that much time and effort into protecting it. This is religous hippocracy,plain and simple. It's not a big deal if we're getting our way,and other's should just grin and bear it,but if we're not getting our way,then it is a big deal.



A MEN! Thank you Whatever for typing this post. This is exactly how I feel. If it's not such a big deal, ask Joe if he'd like it if the US came out with a dollar bill that said "In the Steelers We Trust". He surely would care then. My point is, there really is no place for "In God We Trust". It should not have been added. Having said that, I could really care less, but I can see why it's not really the American way to have it on there. In God We Trust means that it speaks for all the American people. It doesn't. Now, maybe something more along the lines of "In Freedom We Trust", or "In our Great Country We Trust" would suit everyone who lives in our country.

Everyone has the right to believe in God and everyone has the right to not believe in God. That is a big part of what American freedom is about. So to put "In God We Trust", then that means the people who are not religious are not as American. And it's not as though agnostics and atheists are a small part of the American population. This country was founded upon morals that most people have, whether they read the bible or don't.

Joe, there is nothing wrong with having things "religious" in public. Like, if you own a business, then you have every right to put up the Ten Commandments or a picture of a "white" Jesus, or the last supper, etc...etc..... That would be your right.

Also, this country was founded upon Christianity??????!!!!!

Here Joe, you can read quotes that are ACTUAL quotes from some of the important people in American History.-

""I have examined allthe known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in ourparticular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They areall alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have beenburnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of thiscoercion? To make one half the world fools and the other halfhypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." - ThomasJefferson, letter to William Short, 1801

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin


"Whatyou should say to outsiders is that a Christian has neither more norless rights in our Association than an atheist. When our platformbecomes too narrow for people of all creeds and of no creeds, I myselfshall not stand upon it." - Susan B. Anthony.






Of course Joe, history books taught in elementary school will not show these quotes of our forefathers. You would never know them unless you really read what these people had to say while they were alive. Again, I could care less about the In God We Trust being the the dollar bill, but the people complaining about the people complaining about it is one of my pet peeves. [:D][:P][;)]

[toyota24]

The seperation that Joe speaks of is all well and good; but is it held up? There is far too much political weight behind the Christian church in the USA and it really isn't fair.
The rights of people are being trodden on because people listen to the nutjobs from the South. If a woman wants an abortion - let her have one. There is enough of a consensus that it isn't "murder" for it to be deemed acceptable. If two men (or two women, for that matter) that love each other a lot want to register their partnership as something more special; they should be allowed to.
And if a man happens to fall in love with a puppy....let them therefore stand before a court and say that....the puppy can bark and the man or woman can say I do....
Yes, only we're talking about 2 consenting adults, not an animal and a person. Big difference. The right picking on gays disgusts me. The only reason they do it is b/c homosexuals are a marginal group in terms of numbers, and the public in general has enough misconceptions about them to be led to believe whatever. It's no coincidence that gays were one of the first groups Hitler went after when he came to power in Germany, and that the republicans used gay marriage as a wedge issue in recent elections. And no, that doesn't mean I think Republicans are Nazis, so don't even trot that garbage out. I have said in the past that I understand why people oppose abortion. It's not hard to see why someone would be appalled by it. With gay marriage though, it's just a big group of people bullying a small and less understood one. What two consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody's business. If you want to home school your kids and tell them science is evil, I can't stop you, nor would I care enough to try. The difference between homophobes (not saying you are one, roar) and people who go about their business seems to be some driving need to have the authority to tell everyone else how to run their lives. I just don't get it. People distrust the federal govt in terms of taxation, gun laws, etc, but they think it's perfectly okay for them to regulate what goes on in the bedroom.

[jamiethelanky]

The seperation that Joe speaks of is all well and good; but is it held up? There is far too much political weight behind the Christian church in the USA and it really isn't fair.
The rights of people are being trodden on because people listen to the nutjobs from the South. If a woman wants an abortion - let her have one. There is enough of a consensus that it isn't "murder" for it to be deemed acceptable. If two men (or two women, for that matter) that love each other a lot want to register their partnership as something more special; they should be allowed to.
And if a man happens to fall in love with a puppy....let them therefore stand before a court and say that....the puppy can bark and the man or woman can say I do....

Because pupies have a full legal standing...
Moron...

[jamiethelanky]

Oh, and by the way, sunshine; what would me marrying someone do so much damage to you or society? I didn't choose to be gay. I never would. Why would I? Get grief off narrowminded idiots, who have this conception in their head that love is A Man And A Woman and everything else is somewhat else? Have no chance of having any of my own children? To be honest, I hate the fact I'm gay: but I'm happy that I am. Because I am able to stand up against people who think that I shouldn't exist due to some book written thousands of years ago and say 'screw you.' Because I'm able to have a happy relationship with someone I love instead of lying to myself and having an awful life.
Here's my lesson to you. Next time you want to rag someone on their sexuality just think... do they want to be gay? I for one didn't. It pretty much stopped me being on the football team (locker room awkwardness) and it immediately castigated me as a hate figure among certain groups.

[jmccracky]

The seperation that Joe speaks of is all well and good; but is it held up? There is far too much political weight behind the Christian church in the USA and it really isn't fair.
The rights of people are being trodden on because people listen to the nutjobs from the South. If a woman wants an abortion - let her have one. There is enough of a consensus that it isn't "murder" for it to be deemed acceptable. If two men (or two women, for that matter) that love each other a lot want to register their partnership as something more special; they should be allowed to.
And if a man happens to fall in love with a puppy....let them therefore stand before a court and say that....the puppy can bark and the man or woman can say I do....

Because pupies have a full legal standing...
Moron...


Hahaha! Yeah, Puppies can work, they can go to school, and they can make the decision to fall in love with a human, ROFL! I also heard they can play the guitar!!!! I've always hated that logic. It's basically saying that anyone who isn't straight is not on the same "level" as humans who are straight. That straight people are above non-straight people. That's ridiculous and yes, it is hate. Heck, I don't even believe in marriage, lol! But, if ho-mo-se-xuals want the same misery as straight people, then I say let them! LOL!

[jamiethelanky]

(you can say gay on the boards, JM.. :-p)

[Beaker]

To be honest, I hate the fact I'm gay: but I'm happy that I am.
Huh?

[jamiethelanky]

I think it's what they refer to as confusion.
I'll try my best to explain. I hate the fact that because I am gay I cannot have children, feel uncomfortable when on sports teams (because of the assumption from every one of my teammates that I'm checking them out) and that I face a lot of flak from the more ignorant members of society. However, I'm happy that I am now in a priveleged position, that I am out and I am able to live how I'd want to live instead of a shaky half-life, and able to tell those that are hostile that, to be frank, they're idiots, and that their reasoning is so stupid it can be so easily picked apart.

[jmccracky]

To be honest, I hate the fact I'm gay: but I'm happy that I am.
Huh?


Beaker, I hope you're being silly. I'd rank you up with the top 3 posters as far as intelligence goes. If I can figure that line out, then you can! BTW, I don't rank any Steeler fans above you, if that helps. ;)

[jmccracky]

(you can say gay on the boards, JM.. :-p)

Haha. I'm old school though.........I just don't want to get into trouble.

[Steely_J]

Ok now you have a statue of the "Ten commandmentin a court room" displayed (Christianity symbol). Does that not protraya symbol to one particular religion? Last I checked churchs do not havesymbols of a golden eagle located in any location within property.


Actually there's always been an American Flag and Eagle in every churchI've been in. Plus they hold mass for national holidays such asThanksgiving, New Years, Memorial Day... etc.

The 10 Commandments in a Courtroom is fine. So what if they'rereligiously founded,.. Most of them are pretty sound guidelines. i.e. Don't kill, Don't Cheat on your spouse, kick back on Sunday..Respect your parents,.

I guess you don't really need to follow these just because the churchsuggests that you do. But you'd probably end up in jail.

And get reminded of where you went wrong while you're in court. [H]

Honestly,.. people who knit pick over getting offended over the tiniestreligious reference in public, need to chill. You don't wannapractice it, by all means don't. But just like it's annoying tohave people come preach to your front door about how youre going toburn if you don't follow their way,.. it's equally as annoying for theanti-religious to whine and moan over everything.

Two extreme ends of the scale,.. both as ridiculous.

[Joe from Florence]

no oasiswr, you proved the point i've been trying to make all along.....in god we trust on a dollar bill is not forcing anyone to follow a certain religion.....but just like you and many others, you all have misunderstood what seperation means. that is the problem with this society, people think seperation means no one can have anything religious in public when that is not what it means at all.
If the dollar bill said in god we trust and followed by only christians can use this money as legal tender currency...then it would be what your talking about, but it doesn't therefore it isn't intruding on anyones rites.

Here's what gets me. Religous people will say that having the 10 commandments in courthouses,having "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill,and having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience is no big deal. Some other group comes along and says,"Well,if it's not a big deal,then take it off." Then the religous get upset and start fighting it. Well,if it's not a big deal,like they say in the first place,then why do they protest these things so much? Obviously,it is a big deal if they're willing to put that much time and effort into protecting it. This is religous hippocracy,plain and simple. It's not a big deal if we're getting our way,and other's should just grin and bear it,but if we're not getting our way,then it is a big deal.


the question is this.....are those instances you talked about forcing anyone to worship any way? or forcing anyone to join a particular religion? nope.
Remember folks, one of the cornerstones of this country when it was founded was Religious freedom. To worship as you wish and not to be told who and how you worship.
Religion is a huge part of the united states wether people want to admit it or not......does it bother me if i walk in a courthouse that DOESN'T have the 10 commandments? nope....does it bother me if one is displayed? Nope
for anyone to say they are offended by such things is a joke to me. When these people walk into a courthouse, or handle money, do they burn like in the exorcists when holy water is tossed on them? no. So what is the big deal? The only thing i can think of is these people are ones who just like to get attention.
you say it's no big deal if we get our way but if you don't get your way it's a big deal....well your wrong.....our courthouse here doesn't have the commandments displayed etc. and the religious fanatical's aren't protesting trying to get it put up....so you have to look at it from both sides.....I don't see a lot of religious groups pushing to put these things up everywhere....what i do see is the few places these things may be displayed the anti religious sector are the ones who are doing the complaining.
So like i said, your side does have its way in a ton of places, no one is complaining about it are they?

[Joe from Florence]

I think it's what they refer to as confusion.
I'll try my best to explain. I hate the fact that because I am gay I cannot have children, feel uncomfortable when on sports teams (because of the assumption from every one of my teammates that I'm checking them out) and that I face a lot of flak from the more ignorant members of society. However, I'm happy that I am now in a priveleged position, that I am out and I am able to live how I'd want to live instead of a shaky half-life, and able to tell those that are hostile that, to be frank, they're idiots, and that their reasoning is so stupid it can be so easily picked apart.

well this topic has taken a turn to spice it up.
I agree with you Jamie, people who may be homosexual have been persecuted for many many years....though i don't agree with it, i also at the same time understand it isn't a choice and people should never be punished for something that is natural. Many don't believe it is a natural thing but the last 20 years the education has finally been able to break down many of the prejudices surrounding that lifestyle.
When you talk about christianity, well although i consider myself very religious, i do not attend church on a regular basis anymore because (and this may strike many of you funny seeing how i am the one who started this topic) I find that the catholic church has gotten way too political, sort of a opposite turn that we were talking about here....i think instead of the government getting involved in religions uneccessarily, it's the opposite in that some churches have done that. When i was growing up I went to catholic school my first 8 years....i believe in a lot of what the bible teaches, but there are some things i may not believe in.....for instance the way the catholic church was created was basically by 2 men's beliefs of how they wanted it to be ran and what beliefs they would teach....not what Jesus believed should be taught or the way of life he wanted men to live, but instead a lot of beliefs in the church was what someone else wanted. for instance, Jesus never said anything about priest couldn't be married, it was no where in his preachings etc. it was just what the founder of the church wanted. Many little things like that made me think......the chruch wasn't so much what Jesus said it should be but what a guy wanted. Yea i didn't go into a lot of it, but you get the idea.......I worship God in my own way, i still attend church etc. but i do not believe 100% what it stands for a lot of time......What i believe is quite simple.....All men are created equal (men and women) and that God doesn't care what color of skin, what religion you follow if any, but that you believe in a mightier power and treat others the way you would like to be treated and that is with respect and love.
anyway, there i go on a rant....sorry.....but i wanted to let you know, this topic isn't about my religious beliefs but more of the freedoms we should all have to worship the way we want without restirctions

[Jom112]

The seperation that Joe speaks of is all well and good; but is it held up? There is far too much political weight behind the Christian church in the USA and it really isn't fair.
The rights of people are being trodden on because people listen to the nutjobs from the South. If a woman wants an abortion - let her have one. There is enough of a consensus that it isn't "murder" for it to be deemed acceptable. If two men (or two women, for that matter) that love each other a lot want to register their partnership as something more special; they should be allowed to.
And if a man happens to fall in love with a puppy....let them therefore stand before a court and say that....the puppy can bark and the man or woman can say I do....

Because pupies have a full legal standing...
Moron...
LOL it was a joke....I dont have a problem with homosexuals my very best friend is one....but I dont think they should legalize gay marriage just because a small percentage of the population is screaming for it to happen...... it will just open up a whole box of things that im not sure that we as a society can or should have to deal with. And if you dont want to be gay than I am sorry....but I dont really care whether you are or not....its your choice whether you want to live that lifestyle....even if your attracted to a man you dont HAVE to act on it....if its such a burden dont....I mean you could be single....but dont act like im a hatemonger because I say a quote out of humor I guess I should have put in a LOL?!?!?!....YOU are extremely narrow minded and the sooner you see that the better off you will be...but why should you listen to me I mean after all I am just a narrow minded redneck conservative right?.....moron!!!

Not trying to sound like a smarta$$ but what kinds of things specifically do you think will be opened up that society can't deal with?

[jamiethelanky]

Well, at least you were right on the narrow minded front...
"I don't think they should legalize gay marriage just because a small percentage of the population are screaming for it."
Actually, it's a fairly significant portion of the population. Around a third of Americans support it.
"It'll just open a whole box of things that I'm not sure that we as a society can or should have to deal with."
What. Like love? Yes, it would be dangerous I suppose: what with all the loving heterosexual marriages knocking around. Britney Spears' 48hr marriage: built on love. Young ladies attracted by rich old men's 'personality': love.
So, come on, name this whole box of things...
"even if your attracted to men you don't have to act on it"
Yes. Because I want to do that... look: I don't like being gay because there are so many self-righteous bigoted idiots in the world.
"it's your choice whether you want to live that lifestyle"
Ohhhh.... no it isn't. Yes, I chose not to have children, I chose to be put in a situation where I make others feel uncomfortable. I chose all this... I must be mad...
""you could be single"
That's true. But it wouldn't half be depressing... why should I be ashamed? Why is my relationship instantly "bad" whilst others are "good". I could be single, because it would be a whole lot better than being in a relationship with somebody I love.
"dont act like im a hatemonger because I say a quote out of humor"
I don't see anyone else laughing.
"YOU are extremely narrow minded and the sooner you see that the better off you will be"
Thank you. You've opened my eyes. I feel so much better. Surely, if you even tugged your hand to your mouse and look at the rest of my posts I am one of the most annoyingly non-condemning on this board. Odell: give him a second chance. Henry: give him a tenth chance. Don't take one flippant comment the wrong way - a comment I acknowledged was wrong.

[Jom112]

"It'll just open a whole box of things that I'm not sure that we as a society can or should have to deal with."
What. Like love? Yes, it would be dangerous I suppose: what with all the loving heterosexual marriages knocking around. Britney Spears' 48hr marriage: built on love. Young ladies attracted by rich old men's 'personality': love.

I think the whole "sanctity" of marriage argument went pretty much out the window when they started opening drive thru wedding chapels in Vegas.
I don't know why people today still want to infringe on the human rights of others...

[philhos]

"It'll just open a whole box of things that I'm not sure that we as a society can or should have to deal with."
What. Like love? Yes, it would be dangerous I suppose: what with all the loving heterosexual marriages knocking around. Britney Spears' 48hr marriage: built on love. Young ladies attracted by rich old men's 'personality': love.

I think the whole "sanctity" of marriage argument went pretty much out the window when they started opening drive thru wedding chapels in Vegas.
I don't know why people today still want to infringe on the human rights of others...

For purposes of clarification, gay marriage is not a human right. Human rights are the right to exist, breathe, eat, etc. Gay marriage would be characterized as a civil right.

[Jom112]

"It'll just open a whole box of things that I'm not sure that we as a society can or should have to deal with."
What. Like love? Yes, it would be dangerous I suppose: what with all the loving heterosexual marriages knocking around. Britney Spears' 48hr marriage: built on love. Young ladies attracted by rich old men's 'personality': love.

I think the whole "sanctity" of marriage argument went pretty much out the window when they started opening drive thru wedding chapels in Vegas.
I don't know why people today still want to infringe on the human rights of others...

For purposes of clarification, gay marriage is not a human right. Human rights are the right to exist, breathe, eat, etc. Gay marriage would be characterized as a civil right.

Ah, nevermind...

[jamiethelanky]

lol.
Seems I've gotten under your skin there a bit haven't I?
I've never called you a redneck, I made an ill-judged comment earlier in general but I never called you a redneck. Mainly that's because I'm English: and I'd prefer chav. If you wanna mess with me, mess with me. I got flamed for making the statement on the first page of this discussion so I don't see where you are getting the 'don't mess with the gay guy' line from.
And yes, to clarify, most people in the Western world abide stable gay relationships; and will probably support gay 'marriage' (or what you will). The one question is: if your not OK with gay marriage, you need to come up with a pretty damn good reason not to sound like a bigot. I will never understand you, and you will never understand me. I know that. I can see that because it has caused this entertaining little divergence from my normally pedestrian waltz through this board.
PS. I have tried to have been a Christian before - in fact I was brought up one. I still believe in and love God.
PPS. Victim mentality? Nah. Rational argument...
PPPS. I'll type when I damn well please.
Have a splendid day.

[Alias]

Joe you're right about people missing the meaning of separation of church and state.
Best government is a benevolent dictatorship, so pick me!! (j/k)
What else was there that came up? 10 commandments...good things to live by regardless of your religion. Gay marriage and homosexuality in general... I'm kinda torn on. Sorry Jamie, but I don't believe that acting on homosexual impulses, whether natural or not, is ok. Just like I'd be against acting on heterosexual impulses outside of a marriage. Now that I've said that, I don't see why gay couples cant share in the legal stuff that married couples get to. I mean, I haven't done a lot of research because law bores me, but say a gay couple have been together for several years, and one of them is put in critical condition from a car accident, and only family are allowed in to visit him/her. Marriage makes you family, so would a gay person be denied that visitation? If so, I'd be ticked.
So....while I believe that practicing homosexuality is wrong, I know I'm not perfect either, and I see no problem in giving other people a right to common decency.

[Jom112]

"It'll just open a whole box of things that I'm not sure that we as a society can or should have to deal with."
What. Like love? Yes, it would be dangerous I suppose: what with all the loving heterosexual marriages knocking around. Britney Spears' 48hr marriage: built on love. Young ladies attracted by rich old men's 'personality': love.

I think the whole "sanctity" of marriage argument went pretty much out the window when they started opening drive thru wedding chapels in Vegas.
I don't know why people today still want to infringe on the human rights of others...

For purposes of clarification, gay marriage is not a human right. Human rights are the right to exist, breathe, eat, etc. Gay marriage would be characterized as a civil right.

Ah, nevermind...

On second thought, I think I will respond:
"Human rights refers to "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
I know Wikipedia is not the end all of all sources, but it has a good link to the " Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights)" which is accepted by the United Nations.
If the United Nations believes that "equality before the law" is considered a Human Right then I'll go with that definition.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
At first I didn't care to explain further because it's just a misuse of terms, no big deal. But thinking about it more, I wasn't sure if you corrected me just because you wanted me to use the right terms according to your definition of them or because you were saying indirectly that equal rights for gay marriage is not as important as other rights. In other words trivializing the issue.
If it was the first then my apologies for continuing the discussion when there really isn't any need. If you were trivializing the issue then you have my response...

[Jom112]

lol.
Seems I've gotten under your skin there a bit haven't I?
I've never called you a redneck, I made an ill-judged comment earlier in general but I never called you a redneck. Mainly that's because I'm English: and I'd prefer chav. If you wanna mess with me, mess with me. I got flamed for making the statement on the first page of this discussion so I don't see where you are getting the 'don't mess with the gay guy' line from.
And yes, to clarify, most people in the Western world abide stable gay relationships; and will probably support gay 'marriage' (or what you will). The one question is: if your not OK with gay marriage, you need to come up with a pretty damn good reason not to sound like a bigot. I will never understand you, and you will never understand me. I know that. I can see that because it has caused this entertaining little divergence from my normally pedestrian waltz through this board.
PS. I have tried to have been a Christian before - in fact I was brought up one. I still believe in and love God.
PPS. Victim mentality? Nah. Rational argument...
PPPS. I'll type when I damn well please.
Have a splendid day.
I could tell you my reason for not being for gay marriage but it would not matter to you I would still be a bigot to you and to me you would still be someone who thinks im an evil christian trying to hold back your "civil rights" (vomit) Its just a part of the world and we dont see eye to eye theres nothing really left to talk about. I dont have near as much problem with the gay marriage thing as I do the abortion thing but we will never see eye to eye on that either. We are just two people that have prejudged each other by a few words TYPED on a keyboard from thousands of miles away.....its really quite pathetic and I have to much great stuff going on in my life to bother with someone who wont even try to understand where I am coming from....(though I have tried to understand you and actually have no problem with you having that struggle)....type back if you want and I may or may not respond I am losing energy for all of this message board drama I came here to talk about the Bengals and somehow I got drawn here....its just dumb!!


I can't speak for anyone else on this board, but personally I would like to know why you are against gay marriage? I like hearing various viewpoints on all issues...

[Steely_J]

no oasiswr, you proved the point i've been trying to make allalong.....in god we trust on a dollar bill is not forcing anyone tofollow a certain religion.....but just like you and many others, youall have misunderstood what seperation means. that is the problemwith this society, people think seperation means no one can haveanything religious in public when that is not what it means at all.
If the dollar bill said in god we trust and followed by onlychristians can use this money as legal tender currency...then it wouldbe what your talking about, but it doesn't therefore it isn't intrudingon anyones rites.

Here's what gets me. Religous people will say thathaving the 10 commandments in courthouses,having "In God We Trust" onthe dollar bill,and having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience isno big deal. Some other group comes along and says,"Well,if it'snot a big deal,then take it off." Then the religous get upset andstart fighting it. Well,if it's not a big deal,like they say inthe first place,then why do they protest these things so much? Obviously,it is a big deal if they're willing to put that much time andeffort into protecting it. This is religous hippocracy,plain andsimple. It's not a big deal if we're getting our way,and other'sshould just grin and bear it,but if we're not getting our way,then itis a big deal.



The hipocracy flys both ways. The same people who complain about"In God We Trust" are the same people complaining that they didn't geta long enough break for Christmas. If having "God" on your money= feeling religious pressure, then getting together in celebration ofthe birth of Jesus Christ should be like... like the worstinjustice ever put upon someone! But there are several agnosticand atheist people who take part in Christmas festivities eachyear.

Talk about hipocracy!

That goes for Easter too. No candy. No time off work. It's just another Sunday.

People will always pick and choose what they want to believe in, but itjust so happens our country was founded by a bunch of conservativechristians. Therefore the effect and history will carry on, andit shouldn't be a shock to people that there are religious icons inpublic.

There are a lot worse things people are exposed to than a 10Commandments Tablet in a courtroom.. I pass by a corner-store fronthouse for druggies every day on my way to work. A few weeks agosomeone was shot in the road out front of it. That's a littleworse exposure than the 10 Commandments.. (maybe if one of themread the whole Thou Shalt Not Kill part, it wouldn't be so bad.)

Church and State are too twined together to really ever pull them apart100%. Both have to make comprimises. Having "In God WeTrust" on our money is something that the "state" side (if you want tocall it that) should really just get over... it's not gonna change,aside from the fact that it's not forcing you to agree with it, thereare simply more people who believe in God who will argue to keepit.

The whole Gay Marriage tangent that this thread got off too is anexample of how the church side needs to get over it. The church'smain arguement with "Gay Marriage" is that the term marriage isreligiously based and is means for a man and woman to bind and makechildren. Well last time I checked, a courthouse can also legallydeem you married. The word may have religious roots, but theygotta get over it. That, is an area where the church is trying toimpose their beliefs on the public (not a friggin' "in God We Trust"stamp on a dollar.. get real) There are way too many gay peoplelooking for the same companionship and legal rights as straightcouples. For people to deny them of it esentially because theyfind it "yucky" is damn childish.

I have several gay friends, two of which are married toeachother, and for anyone to try and deny them the happiness that theyshare is absurd. That is a rough fight which I sympathise with.These people do have it harder because of prejeduce, and religionfrowning on it. It's going to be an uphill battle for awhile. It's areas like that where seperation of church and stateshould really be focusing,.. to deny that religion hasn't played a rolein hindering gay marrage is just foolish.

[Whatever]

I applaud you Joe, for stirring up a little fire and debate on the boards. My take on it is that there should not be any compromise if there is seperation. Putting "in god we trust" on money is compromise. There are a lot of atheist and agnostic people out there that are having these things pushed in their faces, maybe these little references out there offend them. I personally like the tradition side of it all, but I wouldn't want any religion that's not my own be made unescapable in a society I live in.

Thanks Johnny,
But having "In God We Trust" on money is not pushing any religion onto anyone....it's not forcing any person to follow a religion, it's not pursecuting any religion belief either....if your athiest or whatever having those words is not forcing anyone to believe in anyone. People must remember what this country was founded on, and a huge part was freedom of religion......the pilgrims came over here to get away from religious pursecution so they could worship freely.....the fore fathers knew that and wanted this to be a country that any religion could be followed, not just one or none.
so wether someone is atihiest or not, no one is forcing them to pick a religion...they are still free to do as they wish with no penalty at all. It's the ones who fight stuff like "In god we trust" that haven't a clue about what the rite is in the first place.
Wether people want to admit it or not, this country was founded on the belief of a god....that being said, no one is forced to worship in any certain manner....but it's when people try to stop others from worshiping is when i have a serious problem.
It's like TV....you don't like a show, change the channel......you don't like a nativity scene at christmas then just walk on by....you don't like a manora, then walk on by.....it's the ones that stand up and protest these things i have to sit back and laugh at because they just don't get it.
which brings me back to the in god we trust thing.....God isnot a religion and i think that is where people get the issue confused, you either believe in a mightier power or you don't, but to believe in god is not a type of religion.....it's a thing. So for those that don't believe in God, it's no difference than saying In Hawaii I trust, or In Ponies I trust.....it's not a religion, it's simply a belief is all....if a $10 bill said "In bigfoot I trust" i'd wouldn't throw it away...i'd spend it on a beer at the game just like i would any other currency i had.

So,if the government decides tommorow that all clothing has to include a Star of David promenently in it's design,then that's ok? I mean,they aren't forcing anyone to become Jewish,right? Money,like clothing,is an item that we are all basically forced to use to get through life. The government making,say,an athiest,who doesn't believe in god at all,to possess something declaring his trust in God in order to function in society is a little screwed up. I can see some people in that group simply sluffing it off and going about their buisness,and I can see some being offended by it.
Besides which,freedom of religion is a fallicy in America,anyways. Could I walk out my front door tommorrow and publicly sacrifice an animal to Poseidon,the Greek god of the sea,as in times past,for his good favor on an upcoming boating outing? No,because I'd get arrested for animal cruelty. Try looking up your local Church of Satan in the yellow pages. Or better yet,ask the "witches" burned at the stake in Salem about it.
The fact is,we have freedom of religion to a point,however,practicioners of sets of beliefs "outside the box" have been consistantly persecuted by our society. Is it any wonder some of them get defensive at what some view as minor or perceived transgressions against them?

[jmccracky]

Well, at least you were right on the narrow minded front...
"I don't think they should legalize gay marriage just because a small percentage of the population are screaming for it."
Actually, it's a fairly significant portion of the population. Around a third of Americans support it.
"It'll just open a whole box of things that I'm not sure that we as a society can or should have to deal with."
What. Like love? Yes, it would be dangerous I suppose: what with all the loving heterosexual marriages knocking around. Britney Spears' 48hr marriage: built on love. Young ladies attracted by rich old men's 'personality': love.
So, come on, name this whole box of things...
"even if your attracted to men you don't have to act on it"
Yes. Because I want to do that... look: I don't like being gay because there are so many self-righteous bigoted idiots in the world.
"it's your choice whether you want to live that lifestyle"
Ohhhh.... no it isn't. Yes, I chose not to have children, I chose to be put in a situation where I make others feel uncomfortable. I chose all this... I must be mad...
""you could be single"
That's true. But it wouldn't half be depressing... why should I be ashamed? Why is my relationship instantly "bad" whilst others are "good". I could be single, because it would be a whole lot better than being in a relationship with somebody I love.
"dont act like im a hatemonger because I say a quote out of humor"
I don't see anyone else laughing.
"YOU are extremely narrow minded and the sooner you see that the better off you will be"
Thank you. You've opened my eyes. I feel so much better. Surely, if you even tugged your hand to your mouse and look at the rest of my posts I am one of the most annoyingly non-condemning on this board. Odell: give him a second chance. Henry: give him a tenth chance. Don't take one flippant comment the wrong way - a comment I acknowledged was wrong.


Oh your poor victim with your terrible gayness and never having children....give me a break nobody wants to hear it quit your whining I dont hate gay people I just genuinely dont like you. You can be gay I have no problem with it but come on. Me and you just have nothing to talk about it. You think you have me all figured out and you dont know anything about me. As biggoted and hateful as you think I am YOU are the only one saying anything truly mean. How am I not supposed to take offense to you calling me a redneck cause we disagree on just about every issue posibble. I dont call you some "flamer" from San Francisco, if I did that everybody would drop a ton of bricks on my head....oh but dont mess with the gay guy. It is YOUR choice to be gay.....you have that right....it is also my right to not care and to tell you the truth....your a baby....being gay is not a disease if you want children adopt its not that hard.....just quit whining your about to make my head explode. I dont think we will agree on anything so I will discontinue this convo with you and everyone else thinking whatever you want about me, I do NOT care I speak my mind and I make no apologies of it. You whine and moan and noone sais anything because they think if your not ok with gay marriage your a biggot. Well to hell with that I am not for it and if you dont like that guess what....I dont care I will never meet you and for that I am thankful. You think its hard to be gay????? Trying being a christian where everytjhing you believe is thrown in your face on a daily basis.....you will never understand me but I understand you WAY more than you think I do....I just ask that you dont address me anymore. You are to whiney for me and I just cant take people with a victim mentality!!! And before you start to respond to this and make me try to look evil just know that I dont care what you think and then stop typing!!!!


Bengalroar, I think where Jamiethelankey was offended was how you were telling him that he could just choose to not be gay. Really, you said that if he has issues with being gay (different than us straight dudes) then he should just stop being gay and be straight because it's his choice. It's not a choice. If it is, then what you're telling the rest of the world is that you could in fact make a choice to be gay and stop liking girls. I don't know about you, but I like women and it's not because I "choose" to like women. I JUST DO. I can't help it. My brother is gay. I live with him and his boyfriend. I hang out with their gay friends. I've never once thought about going to the other side and liking men. One of my best friends was raised by a VERY open gay father. Guess what? He's 32 years old, and as straight as they come. (he dated 4 girls just last week! Lucky ducky! lol. )

You cannot tell me that people who are gay do not get ridiculed for how they are. I see it all the time, and I'm straight. Some of your quotes from the post that Jamie responded to basically tells him to stay in the closet and not care if most people make fun of him or dissapprove of his lifestyle. He should just grin and bear it? Maybe date some girls? I think his point is that if he could date girls, have a family, he would. But, he wouldn't be happy. Now, he is happy. It's straight folks like us who make non-straight people feel uncomfortable for being the way they are. Do I want to see two men kissing in public? No. Do I want to see two straight hillbilly rednecks with 2 teeth between them making out in public? NO! But would it really bother me that much? Nah.

[jamiethelanky]

lol.
Seems I've gotten under your skin there a bit haven't I?
I've never called you a redneck, I made an ill-judged comment earlier in general but I never called you a redneck. Mainly that's because I'm English: and I'd prefer chav. If you wanna mess with me, mess with me. I got flamed for making the statement on the first page of this discussion so I don't see where you are getting the 'don't mess with the gay guy' line from.
And yes, to clarify, most people in the Western world abide stable gay relationships; and will probably support gay 'marriage' (or what you will). The one question is: if your not OK with gay marriage, you need to come up with a pretty damn good reason not to sound like a bigot. I will never understand you, and you will never understand me. I know that. I can see that because it has caused this entertaining little divergence from my normally pedestrian waltz through this board.
PS. I have tried to have been a Christian before - in fact I was brought up one. I still believe in and love God.
PPS. Victim mentality? Nah. Rational argument...
PPPS. I'll type when I damn well please.
Have a splendid day.
I could tell you my reason for not being for gay marriage but it would not matter to you I would still be a bigot to you and to me you would still be someone who thinks im an evil christian trying to hold back your "civil rights" (vomit) Its just a part of the world and we dont see eye to eye theres nothing really left to talk about. I dont have near as much problem with the gay marriage thing as I do the abortion thing but we will never see eye to eye on that either. We are just two people that have prejudged each other by a few words TYPED on a keyboard from thousands of miles away.....its really quite pathetic and I have to much great stuff going on in my life to bother with someone who wont even try to understand where I am coming from....(though I have tried to understand you and actually have no problem with you having that struggle)....type back if you want and I may or may not respond I am losing energy for all of this message board drama I came here to talk about the Bengals and somehow I got drawn here....its just dumb!!


Well, until you do come up with a good reason what conclusion can I come to?

[toyota24]

"It'll just open a whole box of things that I'm not sure that we as a society can or should have to deal with."
What. Like love? Yes, it would be dangerous I suppose: what with all the loving heterosexual marriages knocking around. Britney Spears' 48hr marriage: built on love. Young ladies attracted by rich old men's 'personality': love.

I think the whole "sanctity" of marriage argument went pretty much out the window when they started opening drive thru wedding chapels in Vegas.
I don't know why people today still want to infringe on the human rights of others...

For purposes of clarification, gay marriage is not a human right. Human rights are the right to exist, breathe, eat, etc. Gay marriage would be characterized as a civil right.

In that context, is any marriage at all a human right? You don't need to be married to eat, exist, breathe or even procreate.

[jamiethelanky]

"It'll just open a whole box of things that I'm not sure that we as a society can or should have to deal with."
What. Like love? Yes, it would be dangerous I suppose: what with all the loving heterosexual marriages knocking around. Britney Spears' 48hr marriage: built on love. Young ladies attracted by rich old men's 'personality': love.

I think the whole "sanctity" of marriage argument went pretty much out the window when they started opening drive thru wedding chapels in Vegas.
I don't know why people today still want to infringe on the human rights of others...

For purposes of clarification, gay marriage is not a human right. Human rights are the right to exist, breathe, eat, etc. Gay marriage would be characterized as a civil right.

In that context, is any marriage at all a human right? You don't need to be married to eat, exist, breathe or even procreate.

I think that was the idea. That marriage in any shape is not a basic human right. However, is a right supposedly for all civilians due to the law of the land.

[Danno]

...

The whole Gay Marriage tangent that this thread got off too is anexample of how the church side needs to get over it. The church'smain arguement with "Gay Marriage" is that the term marriage isreligiously based and is means for a man and woman to bind and makechildren. Well last time I checked, a courthouse can also legallydeem you married. The word may have religious roots, but theygotta get over it. That, is an area where the church is trying toimpose their beliefs on the public (not a friggin' "in God We Trust"stamp on a dollar.. get real) There are way too many gay peoplelooking for the same companionship and legal rights as straightcouples. For people to deny them of it esentially because theyfind it "yucky" is damn childish.

...



I couldn't have said it better myself. *clap clap clap*

[Joe from Florence]

I'm a lesbian and want to marry Anna Kounakova

[Danno]

...

The whole Gay Marriage tangent that this thread got off too is anexample of how the church side needs to get over it. The church'smain arguement with "Gay Marriage" is that the term marriage isreligiously based and is means for a man and woman to bind and makechildren. Well last time I checked, a courthouse can also legallydeem you married. The word may have religious roots, but theygotta get over it. That, is an area where the church is trying toimpose their beliefs on the public (not a friggin' "in God We Trust"stamp on a dollar.. get real) There are way too many gay peoplelooking for the same companionship and legal rights as straightcouples. For people to deny them of it esentially because theyfind it "yucky" is damn childish.

...



I couldn't have said it better myself. *clap clap clap*
Oh yeah....I find it "yucky" how stupid of you to assume that!!!


How stupid of you to assume that I was in any way referring to you. [8-)]



Just so there is no confusion. I wasn't.

[Steely_J]

...

The whole Gay Marriage tangent that this thread got off too is anexample of how the church side needs to get over it. The church'smain arguement with "Gay Marriage" is that the term marriage isreligiously based and is means for a man and woman to bind and makechildren. Well last time I checked, a courthouse can also legallydeem you married. The word may have religious roots, but theygotta get over it. That, is an area where the church is trying toimpose their beliefs on the public (not a friggin' "in God We Trust"stamp on a dollar.. get real) There are way too many gay peoplelooking for the same companionship and legal rights as straightcouples. For people to deny them of it esentially because theyfind it "yucky" is damn childish.

...



I couldn't have said it better myself. *clap clap clap*
Oh yeah....I find it "yucky" how stupid of you to assume that!!!


Come again? I'm not sure what you're saying here. What am I assuming?

[jmccracky]

Well, at least you were right on the narrow minded front...
"I don't think they should legalize gay marriage just because a small percentage of the population are screaming for it."
Actually, it's a fairly significant portion of the population. Around a third of Americans support it.
"It'll just open a whole box of things that I'm not sure that we as a society can or should have to deal with."
What. Like love? Yes, it would be dangerous I suppose: what with all the loving heterosexual marriages knocking around. Britney Spears' 48hr marriage: built on love. Young ladies attracted by rich old men's 'personality': love.
So, come on, name this whole box of things...
"even if your attracted to men you don't have to act on it"
Yes. Because I want to do that... look: I don't like being gay because there are so many self-righteous bigoted idiots in the world.
"it's your choice whether you want to live that lifestyle"
Ohhhh.... no it isn't. Yes, I chose not to have children, I chose to be put in a situation where I make others feel uncomfortable. I chose all this... I must be mad...
""you could be single"
That's true. But it wouldn't half be depressing... why should I be ashamed? Why is my relationship instantly "bad" whilst others are "good". I could be single, because it would be a whole lot better than being in a relationship with somebody I love.
"dont act like im a hatemonger because I say a quote out of humor"
I don't see anyone else laughing.
"YOU are extremely narrow minded and the sooner you see that the better off you will be"
Thank you. You've opened my eyes. I feel so much better. Surely, if you even tugged your hand to your mouse and look at the rest of my posts I am one of the most annoyingly non-condemning on this board. Odell: give him a second chance. Henry: give him a tenth chance. Don't take one flippant comment the wrong way - a comment I acknowledged was wrong.


Oh your poor victim with your terrible gayness and never having children....give me a break nobody wants to hear it quit your whining I dont hate gay people I just genuinely dont like you. You can be gay I have no problem with it but come on. Me and you just have nothing to talk about it. You think you have me all figured out and you dont know anything about me. As biggoted and hateful as you think I am YOU are the only one saying anything truly mean. How am I not supposed to take offense to you calling me a redneck cause we disagree on just about every issue posibble. I dont call you some "flamer" from San Francisco, if I did that everybody would drop a ton of bricks on my head....oh but dont mess with the gay guy. It is YOUR choice to be gay.....you have that right....it is also my right to not care and to tell you the truth....your a baby....being gay is not a disease if you want children adopt its not that hard.....just quit whining your about to make my head explode. I dont think we will agree on anything so I will discontinue this convo with you and everyone else thinking whatever you want about me, I do NOT care I speak my mind and I make no apologies of it. You whine and moan and noone sais anything because they think if your not ok with gay marriage your a biggot. Well to hell with that I am not for it and if you dont like that guess what....I dont care I will never meet you and for that I am thankful. You think its hard to be gay????? Trying being a christian where everytjhing you believe is thrown in your face on a daily basis.....you will never understand me but I understand you WAY more than you think I do....I just ask that you dont address me anymore. You are to whiney for me and I just cant take people with a victim mentality!!! And before you start to respond to this and make me try to look evil just know that I dont care what you think and then stop typing!!!!


Bengalroar, I think where Jamiethelankey was offended was how you were telling him that he could just choose to not be gay. Really, you said that if he has issues with being gay (different than us straight dudes) then he should just stop being gay and be straight because it's his choice. It's not a choice. If it is, then what you're telling the rest of the world is that you could in fact make a choice to be gay and stop liking girls. I don't know about you, but I like women and it's not because I "choose" to like women. I JUST DO. I can't help it. My brother is gay. I live with him and his boyfriend. I hang out with their gay friends. I've never once thought about going to the other side and liking men. One of my best friends was raised by a VERY open gay father. Guess what? He's 32 years old, and as straight as they come. (he dated 4 girls just last week! Lucky ducky! lol. )

You cannot tell me that people who are gay do not get ridiculed for how they are. I see it all the time, and I'm straight. Some of your quotes from the post that Jamie responded to basically tells him to stay in the closet and not care if most people make fun of him or dissapprove of his lifestyle. He should just grin and bear it? Maybe date some girls? I think his point is that if he could date girls, have a family, he would. But, he wouldn't be happy. Now, he is happy. It's straight folks like us who make non-straight people feel uncomfortable for being the way they are. Do I want to see two men kissing in public? No. Do I want to see two straight hillbilly rednecks with 2 teeth between them making out in public? NO! But would it really bother me that much? Nah.
I did not say that he should stop being gay to be straight...I just said if its so bad stop being gay....I did not say stop being attracted to men and look at woman....I understand you cant control who you are attracted to....you misquoted me!! Where in the world are you getting that I think he should date girls...I dont care who he dates!?!?!?!


Bengalroar, did you not type these quotes?-

""even if your attracted to men you don't have to act on it"

""it's your choice whether you want to live that lifestyle"

""you could be single"


Now, I will say that maybe I took what you said the wrong way. However, those are pretty harsh comments. It certainly seems like you're saying the ball is in his court on who he dates. What we're telling you is that you just cannot tell someone that they can choose who they want to date and be happy. You say you understand that people can't help who they are attracted to, but that's not what I'm getting from your posts. Again, I could be getting you all wrong, and I apologize if I am.

You said if it's so bad to stop being gay. Me, I would say, if it's so bad then it's a shame that other humans gotta stick their noses in other people's business and make life harder for them. So, if it's so bad, then he and other gays should just stay in the closet and hide who they are. Now, you could say that I'm putting words in your mouth again, but I'm not trying to. Correct me then. I'm not putting you down because you could be a great guy. I just disagree with what you've been saying about the subject and don't really understand your intentions. This is klotch and you don't have to participate.

The bad thing about the internet and discussing touchy issues, is we can't have a beer together while talking, lol!

[jamiethelanky]

lol.
Seems I've gotten under your skin there a bit haven't I?
I've never called you a redneck, I made an ill-judged comment earlier in general but I never called you a redneck. Mainly that's because I'm English: and I'd prefer chav. If you wanna mess with me, mess with me. I got flamed for making the statement on the first page of this discussion so I don't see where you are getting the 'don't mess with the gay guy' line from.
And yes, to clarify, most people in the Western world abide stable gay relationships; and will probably support gay 'marriage' (or what you will). The one question is: if your not OK with gay marriage, you need to come up with a pretty damn good reason not to sound like a bigot. I will never understand you, and you will never understand me. I know that. I can see that because it has caused this entertaining little divergence from my normally pedestrian waltz through this board.
PS. I have tried to have been a Christian before - in fact I was brought up one. I still believe in and love God.
PPS. Victim mentality? Nah. Rational argument...
PPPS. I'll type when I damn well please.
Have a splendid day.
I could tell you my reason for not being for gay marriage but it would not matter to you I would still be a bigot to you and to me you would still be someone who thinks im an evil christian trying to hold back your "civil rights" (vomit) Its just a part of the world and we dont see eye to eye theres nothing really left to talk about. I dont have near as much problem with the gay marriage thing as I do the abortion thing but we will never see eye to eye on that either. We are just two people that have prejudged each other by a few words TYPED on a keyboard from thousands of miles away.....its really quite pathetic and I have to much great stuff going on in my life to bother with someone who wont even try to understand where I am coming from....(though I have tried to understand you and actually have no problem with you having that struggle)....type back if you want and I may or may not respond I am losing energy for all of this message board drama I came here to talk about the Bengals and somehow I got drawn here....its just dumb!!


Well, until you do come up with a good reason what conclusion can I come to?
I guess your seriously not getting it....I dont care what conclusion you come to!!! Regardless if what I say to you I am a biggot because I think marriage is not a right.....for the record there are some straight marriages I dont agree with either!!! Ya know what I wont even go into anything with you I am so done with this ridiculous crap!!!

At the risk of sounding like a seven year old, you may be over with this 'ridiculous crap' but you instigated it with the idiotic puppy comment.
If you don't want to get embroiled in a debate you can't handle, don't start one.
I'd love to know your exact reason for being so against gay marriage. If it is only that you don't see marriage as a right: then surely it is a question of equality - that both kinds of relationships have marriage or both don't - but not one with - the haves and one without - the have-nots.

[Steely_J]

lol.
Seems I've gotten under your skin there a bit haven't I?
I've never called you a redneck, I made an ill-judged comment earlier in general but I never called you a redneck. Mainly that's because I'm English: and I'd prefer chav. If you wanna mess with me, mess with me. I got flamed for making the statement on the first page of this discussion so I don't see where you are getting the 'don't mess with the gay guy' line from.
And yes, to clarify, most people in the Western world abide stable gay relationships; and will probably support gay 'marriage' (or what you will). The one question is: if your not OK with gay marriage, you need to come up with a pretty damn good reason not to sound like a bigot. I will never understand you, and you will never understand me. I know that. I can see that because it has caused this entertaining little divergence from my normally pedestrian waltz through this board.
PS. I have tried to have been a Christian before - in fact I was brought up one. I still believe in and love God.
PPS. Victim mentality? Nah. Rational argument...
PPPS. I'll type when I damn well please.
Have a splendid day.
I could tell you my reason for not being for gay marriage but it would not matter to you I would still be a bigot to you and to me you would still be someone who thinks im an evil christian trying to hold back your "civil rights" (vomit) Its just a part of the world and we dont see eye to eye theres nothing really left to talk about. I dont have near as much problem with the gay marriage thing as I do the abortion thing but we will never see eye to eye on that either. We are just two people that have prejudged each other by a few words TYPED on a keyboard from thousands of miles away.....its really quite pathetic and I have to much great stuff going on in my life to bother with someone who wont even try to understand where I am coming from....(though I have tried to understand you and actually have no problem with you having that struggle)....type back if you want and I may or may not respond I am losing energy for all of this message board drama I came here to talk about the Bengals and somehow I got drawn here....its just dumb!!


Well, until you do come up with a good reason what conclusion can I come to?
I guess your seriously not getting it....I dont care what conclusion you come to!!! Regardless if what I say to you I am a biggot because I think marriage is not a right.....for the record there are some straight marriages I dont agree with either!!! Ya know what I wont even go into anything with you I am so done with this ridiculous crap!!!

At the risk of sounding like a seven year old, you may be over with this 'ridiculous crap' but you instigated it with the idiotic puppy comment.
If you don't want to get embroiled in a debate you can't handle, don't start one.
I'd love to know your exact reason for being so against gay marriage. If it is only that you don't see marriage as a right: then surely it is a question of equality - that both kinds of relationships have marriage or both don't - but not one with - the haves and one without - the have-nots.


Don't you know Jamie? Becuase you Gays might have babies together and make more Gays! Then the world would be covered in pink chiffon and we'd waste tons of dollars constructing a huge tiara to sit upon the north pole!

[H] Oh the horror! OOoooooh!!!! [;)]

[jamiethelanky]

lol.
Legend.

[Danno]

I checked with my girlfriend, and she thinks the idea of a giant tiara on the north pole is a good idea. Lol

[Whatever]

Personally,I think a big part of government opposition to gay marriage is that married couples get tax breaks,meaning less tax dollars going into the government if gays are allowed to marry.
Personally,I feel gays should be allowed to marry. I feel that any church can decide not marry them,freedom of religion and all,but they should at the very least be able to go to the courthouse and get hitched.

[The Bat]

Yeah, I'm sorry that I got pulled into an absentminded labelling. I thoughtlessly regurgitated something that I shouldn't have.

Glad I saw this post because I was getting ready to blast you for your earlier stupidity...

[Beaker]

Im all for gay marriage...as long as both chicks are hot.

[jamiethelanky]

Badum tish.

[The Bat]

Im all for gay marriage...as long as both chicks are hot.
...and it's on video... [;)]

[Joe from Florence]

Im all for gay marriage...as long as both chicks are hot.
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6059/askjoejt7.jpg
"You are correct sir!!!!"

[The Bat]

Im all for gay marriage...as long as both chicks are hot.
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6059/askjoejt7.jpg
"You are correct sir!!!!"

Ha ha! Funny pic Joe. Did Andy give you that hat? He gave Shannie and I one like that on our tour.