JUST FYI : I gave up on "religion" a long time ago. EVERY organized religion I have ever encountered is run by people with a clear agenda. No matter how lovingly or saintly the beginnings of that religion were.
I haven't given up on God, specifically because he hasn't given up on me.
I attend church when I can (I'm on the road quite a bit), but I don't adhere to any specific organization's rules for my life. The Bible has all I need and I can go to the Internet and get definitions or explanations.
There is something to be said for Christian fellowship. It is Biblical for one thing. But you have to take certain congregational make ups with a grain of salt.
There are bozos in church, just as there are bozos in bars. But the ones in church are at least trying to seek truth.
I went to Sunday school at a Southern Baptist church and even then (50's and 60's) they were a little more restrained than Catholics and Presbyterians and synagogue goers.
Southern Baptists were a bit tightly wound.
Most of them did not dance or smoke and I found that kind of disappointing, since I loved to do both.

__________________
________________________________________

CROCHET CENTRAL

CROCHET INSTRUCTIONS FOR LEFT HANDERS

THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS

A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP

Huckabee's statement was referring to the FACT that "The Old Testament and New Testament Bibles" are already written and CANNOT be changed. Editing closed a few hundred years ago. Oh how ya'll howl about that LDS bible[Book of Mormon(can you say Mitt?)]which IS only an "amendment" but without the word "new" in the title. (Do you really think that God just "quit" after that "first publication"?)
Was there any symbolism to 10 things "written in stone"?
I guess I don't really need to make that "parchment" comparison.

Now since it IS against most religions to MURDER does that mean that because we have a LAW against murder that we are establishing a theocracy for any one, some, or even all of those religions? So many are paranoid about one of the MOST tolerant(God loves ALL would be the appropriate phrase)of all the religions on the planet that when an intolerant one comes a bombing they have to just deny that there are any intolerant ones except for those darn Christians.

My Main POINTS in regards to this thread are compressed into(the red phrases) the rest is just idle ramblings for your consideration.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

quote/
My issue is over whether or not RELIGION should be able to change the constitution. And please note that transcends political leaning, as BOTH conservative and liberal based religion (exclusively for the sake of religion) should not exert control over the constitution.
______________________________________________

So, Explain again how "religion" which is "just a belief" would possibly change the Constitution. Are you demanding that anything near a religious thought not be allowed to be used in "thinking" about what laws are made?

_____________________________________________
quote/
And as a side issue,.....
____________________________________________

I don't think that you even understood his main point let alone what you think you ALSO saw.
____________________________________________
quote/
establish:
1: to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement
6: to make (a church) a national or state institution
_____________________________________________

#1. So are you demanding that any law that we have that happens to "match" with anyones religious philosophy is unConstitutional?
as to #6......can you put a NAME to this "Church" that he was "attempting to establish" because I believe it is only in paranoid minds. The phrase in the Constitution does refer to establishing a church[as a "State Institution"(like the Courts)].
_____________________________________________
quote/
if the only justification for a law is "religion", then that law fails constitutionally.
__________________________________________

You are so correct on this that you ARE making my point. If the ONLY justification of a law is "religion". Like "don't eat pork". I don't think ANYONE in this country has tried to make a law and said "because it's my religion" they have to come up with something just a little bit better in order to get it even INTO the first committee meeting.
___________________________________________
quote/
Again, nobody is saying that you can't use your religious values.
___________________________________________

Many are and YOU are one of them.
__________________________________________
qoute/
Furthermore, the fact that "many" sins are not illegal is not a defense against the constitutional issue that NO law should be based solely on religion.
That's like saying "there were many cars in the dealership that I did not steal". Stealing even one car is a violation.
_____________________________________________

I liked that analogy.
But if I was to THINK about stealing one car would it be right to accuse me of actually stealing all of them?
Also could you tell me more about the "Law" that was proposed that was based "solely on religion".

_____________________________________________
quote/
By your description, people should talk about "fighting to make the constitution make things *right* for others".
______________________________________________

I couldn't spontaneously come up with better phrasing but my intent was more along the lines of "offering guidance or knowledge" to someone in need of it with NO intent on "forcing" them to "take my advice"

__________________________________________________ __________________
quote/
And on another front, your quote of "However my compassion for others demands that I try to make things "right" for those in need including especially those that "don't know better"." reeks of what some might think is "liberalism"...
___________________________________________

You needn't insult me for being compassionate. That reek was all around me. I'll take a shower and feel clean after it now.


___________________________________________
quote/
This is one example:
This web-site includes many other examples.
You complain about me "demonizing people" when all I am doing is pointing out that these people DEMONIZE OTHERS.
____________________________________________

Interesting web sites. Read any move-ons lately?
Daily KOS? Rosie? or any of the thousands of left wing sites that are set up entirely out of HATRED for conservatives?
For the most part Christians ARE a very tolerant group they do often try to "kill you with kindness" and they often "tell you that you're a sinner(as they are too and openly admit) but rarely try to force their views on others as you like to infer.
Except for that HATED BY EVERYBODY westboro baptist site most of the rest were taken out of context and misrepresented in what they said. If you read that Falwell one he only asked his "people" to pray that 3 judges would decide to retire from the bench sooner rather than later.
____________________________________________
quote/
So, to tax churches LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IS TAXED is to "restrict" them?
That's absurd!
It no more "restricts" them than it restricts the rest of the population that is taxed.
______________________________________________

Again you make my point exactly. Read your last line with a little more thought. Definition of TAX= Burden=Restriction

____________________________________________
quote/
That's one of the problems with Huckabee's statement.
WHOSE interpretation of "God's standards" are going to be used?
___________________________________________

Oh....So then you do realize that he is NOT attempting to establish a "church".....Good thats what I have been trying to say.

_____________________________________________
quote/
I gave up on "religion" a long time ago. EVERY organized religion I have ever encountered is run by people with a clear agenda. No matter how lovingly or saintly the beginnings of that religion were.
___________________________________________

I believe that "religion" is between you and God and has little to do with "other people". In the end it is YOU that will be facing him for judgment. And I don't think he consults because he "knows" already.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

PART of his statement was referring to that.

Do you see anybody complaining about that part of his statement?


No.

I have tried to be careful to establish that the issue is whether or not a law has ONLY religious justification for its existence.
If a law has a secular purpose which happens to coincide with a religious belief, then obviously the law has no problem.
But if the only legitimate state interest for a law's existence is religion, then the law is unconstitutional.

It would be more accurate to observe that if a law prohibited swearing against God just because of second commandment violations, then obviously that is unconstitutional.

1) People, based on their religious belief exclusively with no independent, legitimate secular rational, band together and vote an amendment into place.
2) If it's the ONLY justification, with no secular justification, then it should not be law.


I am going off what he said.
Your blind allegations with no counter-example to explain his EXPLICIT words regarding CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION to be in compliance with "God's standards" are meaningless.
Shake your fist at the air and insist that the sun doesn't exist if you like...

Funny how I explained EXPLICITLY which definition was being used, and then you ignored that.
I'm not entertaining your efforts to misrepresent what I said.

Your effort is like me talking a "jack" with regards to car repair, and suddenly you try to change the subject to male donkeys.

I repeat: "Definition 5B is the definition often utilized for explaining "establishment" in legal interpretation by the courts."


Really?
What's the secular logic behind not selling alcohol on Sundays?
Or maybe we should go down the history of states which have mandated religoius tests in violation of the constitution?
I wouldn't go down that road if I were you, cause that is EXACTLY what has been attempted in the past.


Really?
NAME ANY religoius value I am saying you can't have...
Quote me...


Where did I do that?
Quit trying to make up junk.


Funny how you didn't even refute my point.
You just pretend that being called a "liberal" is an insult, and fail to acknowledge the reality of your actions.

Liberals are often criticized for trying to control people out of a pretense of "knowing better" and "helping".
Which is PRECISELY what you just did...


And again, attacking the messenger while ignoring the message.
If you can show me ANY of those quotes which are inaccurate, let me know.

Not liking the web-site they are posted on is inane and pointless.


You've lost track of things.
I didn't criticize "most Christians".
I talked specifically about ABUSE of power.
And quite frankly, I think Christians who want to put their religious beliefs, based SOLELY on religious beliefs, in the constitution are attempting to abuse power.


You are actually trying to put a kind face on Falwell and his ilk trying to "pray" that 3 judges retire soon, INVOKING their illnesses?
It reeked of a voodoo hex.

A CHRISTIAN approach would have been to pray for their illness.
Instead, the "pastor" tried to use their illness FOR THE PASTOR'S ADVANTAGE.

And if you can't understand why that's a bad thing, then you're lost...


Re-read my last line yourself.
EVERYBODY HAS TO PAY THEM.
So now churches should be less "burdened" than the rest of us???

There are SPECIFIC reasons why some groups are made "tax exempt".
If a company tries to violate those reasons, they don't deserve to be tax exempt.
Religious organizations are the same way.


Re-read the first amendment.
It doesn't say "establish a church".
It talks about establishment of RELIGION.

And notice it doesn't say establishment of A religion.
The fact that they excluded any "a" or "the" makes the amendment actually more powerful and more restrictive.

Stop trying to put extra words into the constitution which are not there.


Substitute "faith" in that paragraph, and I think it's more accurate.
There is "faith" without "religion".

And hopefully you can comprehend how the two can be separate...

____________________________________________
quote/
1) People, based on their religious belief exclusively with no independent, legitimate secular rational, band together and vote an amendment into place.
2) If it's the ONLY justification, with no secular justification, then it should not be law.
___________________________________________

Could you(before the Islamists take over)tell me ANY religious group in this country that actually has the "power" to get any such amendment passed into actual existence. There are way to many anti-religious zealots for that to happen, not to mention no singular cohesive group from ANY religion(in other words we have too many different religions in this country for that to happen).
I agree if they can't find a reason without saying "because my religion" then it can NOT be made federal law but I still don't see anything any where near that happening.
______________________________________________
quote/
I am going off what he said.
Your blind allegations with no counter-example to explain his EXPLICIT words regarding CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION to be in compliance with "God's standards" are meaningless.
Shake your fist at the air and insist that the sun doesn't exist if you like...
______________________________________________

He we are again. One of Gods standards is "Thou shalt not murder". We have laws against murder. That means we are in compliance with God's standards. You keep INSISTING that what he said means ALL 10 Commandments and anything else religious persecutors have ever said. It is what you are believing him to be saying(in paranoia)not what he said nor intended to say.

______________________________________________
quote/
Really?
What's the secular logic behind not selling alcohol on Sundays?
Or maybe we should go down the history of states which have mandated religoius tests in violation of the constitution?
I wouldn't go down that road if I were you, cause that is EXACTLY what has been attempted in the past.
______________________________________________

UH....I give up now you crossed to State, County and City laws and ordinances when I thought it was a Constitutional argument. I believe that States/Community rights/laws is an entirely different issue as the Constitution is a Federal Document with little control over what individual states want to do(at least until the federal courts started overstepping their authority).
Also please note the RED words in the previous quote.
Alcohol on Sunday? Lets talk 18th Amendment then. Which along with the 21st are the only ones concerning alcohol except for taxation amendments. I remind you again that even the SCOTUS has said that "dry" counties is NOT illegal. Not to mention the fact that "pick any random day you want but 1 out of 7 you can't buy alcohol" is not any form of logic secular, religious, or rational and I guess you didn't realize that they didn't make it illegal to drink only to SELL alcohol that was already under government control through licenses and taxation.
___________________________________________
quote/
Funny how I explained EXPLICITLY which definition was being used, and then you ignored that.
I'm not entertaining your efforts to misrepresent what I said.
I repeat: "Definition 5B is the definition often utilized for explaining "establishment" in legal interpretation by the courts."
____________________________________________

I'm sorry you listed 1 thru 7 with additional lettering and I didn't realize that I was restricted to 5b. I will however note that if you have to stretch all the way to 5b who is "making the reach" of logic to unreasonable limits.
I didn't dispute nor ignore any of them just because I only quoted 2 of them.(although I did wonder why a "dictionary" would go so far as to say "as a law" in #1 or "a church" in #6)
I did note however that you didn't answer my question in regards to #6. Name the church that is being "established" if it doesn't have or can't have a NAME it can't exist. And don't just make up a gobbledegook name.
____________________________________________

quote/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept1
Many are and YOU are one of them.
Really?
NAME ANY religoius value I am saying you can't have...
Quote me...
____________________________________________

I can't find a quote where you said I can't have a religious value but however your entire diatribe has been about how "Huckabee is trying to use his religious values" and I do admit you didn't say he couldn't HAVE them just that he wasn't allowed to have them in considering Constitutional Amendments. You stretch his statement to mean that he is using ONLY religious convictions.
_____________________________________________

quote/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept1
But if I was to THINK about stealing one car would it be right to accuse me of actually stealing all of them?
Where did I do that?
Quit trying to make up junk.
____________________________________________

You made up the analogy. I only added to it to illustrate my point in YOUR terms.

_____________________________________________

quote/
Funny how you didn't even refute my point.
Liberals are often criticized for trying to control people out of a pretense of "knowing better" and "helping".
Which is PRECISELY what you just did...
_________________________________________

Actually my answer expounded on the "too short" attempted explanation of how I feel about life and "community" and if you read it you would have caught the part about "not forcing" anybody only offering advice with not a care about if they "accepted" it or not. That to NOT OFFER was morally wrong.
The criticism of liberals is over the FACT that they want to make LAWS because they "know better" and want to force me to "help". Which by the way are not in the Constitution either.
____________________________________________

quote/
And again, attacking the messenger while ignoring the message.
If you can show me ANY of those quotes which are inaccurate, let me know.
____________________________________________

So for me to just NAME the website is an "attack". That goes to show that even you recognize how "unfair" they are. I didn't dispute the "quotes" only the "people" that were being quoted as to being representative(when they only represent no more than .00000000000001%), the lack of context, and the misrepresentative editorials included.
__________________________________________

quote/
You are actually trying to put a kind face on Falwell and his ilk trying to "pray" that 3 judges retire soon, INVOKING their illnesses?
It reeked of a voodoo hex.

A CHRISTIAN approach would have been to pray for their illness.
Instead, the "pastor" tried to use their illness FOR THE PASTOR'S ADVANTAGE.

And if you can't understand why that's a bad thing, then you're lost...
_____________________________________________

I suppose it would be wrong to pray for a criminal to retire too? The judges he specified are responsible for what he considers to be "murder of innocents".
He didn't cause nor ask to be made worse their illnesses. He merely mentioned them so as to give his parishioners information that they probably didn't know. Yes Christians use voodoo all the time.
And the "advantage" to the pastor was?
Why do YOU presume to tell the Christians "How they should act" if you so adamantly oppose their views?
By the way have you checked out the retirement package for SCOTUS judges. It's even better than while they are "working", just like congress'.
____________________________________________

quote/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept1
Again you make my point exactly. Read your last line with a little more thought. Definition of TAX= Burden=Restriction
Re-read my last line yourself.
EVERYBODY HAS TO PAY THEM.
So now churches should be less "burdened" than the rest of us???

There are SPECIFIC reasons why some groups are made "tax exempt".
If a company tries to violate those reasons, they don't deserve to be tax exempt.
Religious organizations are the same way.
______________________________________________

EVERYBODY does NOT pay taxes.
So then you do admit that taxes are a burden?
A burden IS a restriction.
The constitution SPECIFICALLY says "free exercise thereof". What part of this short logic trail are you lost on?
Now answer your own questions about "churches being less burdened", "specificity of exemption", and don't forget to ignore the "charity" work done by churches.
____________________________________________

quote/
Re-read the first amendment.
It doesn't say "establish a church".
It talks about establishment of RELIGION.
_____________________________________________

Back to the semantics then.
So what is this "religion" that "Hucklberry" is trying to make constitutional amendments respecting to establish?

While we're here though. Simple question: Which branch of government "makes laws"? What branch is he running for?
_____________________________________________

quote/
And hopefully you can comprehend how the two can be separate...
_________________________________________

as I have been trying to point out to you about Huck's statement that was blown so far out of proportion.

This topic has begun to bore me tremendously. I've wasted hours just talking about what some think that someone "might" have "said". Lets go after a Hillary quote next time, she's the one that's so "slick" that she HAS to be watched and parsed(not to mention her "coach").

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

It's funny how the Christians habitually boast of having power...
There was even talk of how GW Bush was supposedly going to "give" them THREE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES...
Talk of how this is a "Christian" nation...

And then people like you (when it's convenient for them) turn around and pretend you're powerless.
Positively amazing!

Furthermore, it's amusing how you try to put up a front of powerless Christians, while invoking an impending threat of Islam.
Just out of curiousity, is the surge failing in Iraq?
Are the Muslims about to swarm the U.S.?
Is your comment an indication that you think GW Bush is an abysmal failure and is about to give up the keys to the kingdom to the Muslims?
< end sarcasm >


"to many anti-religious zealots"???
ROFLMAO!
And out parades the exaggeration of how many people are "out to get" the Christians...

Christians make up 75% of this country.
I challenge you to give me a percentage of the "anti-religious zealots"...


I swear. You can lead a horse to water...
That is PRECISELY what Huckabee was talking about.
Making the constitution match GOD'S standards...

Did he talk about making the constitution match standards of god's, that happened to coincide with secularity?
NO.
He talked about how he was frustrated that society was changing "god's" standards.

This thread has proven an exercise in obfuscation by people who refuse to acknowledge what Huckabee was actually saying.


If we are going "again", it's because you're chasing your own tail and refusing to address all the issues...

Over and over again, I point to the problems behind door #2, and you insist that we look at door #3 instead while failing to address door #2...


Did Huckabee praise the EXISTING standards that coincide with God's?
No.
He talked about CHANGING the constitution.
So obviously he had CHANGE in mind.

Furthermore, he didn't talk about SECULAR changes.
He talked about changing things for GOD'S standards.

You keep trying to obfuscate the issue, but the truth of the matter is that his words speak plainly...


Liar.
I said no such thing.


You asked for an example.
I gave it.
I was talking about CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.
There is no reason to restrict examples to just "federal", cause state, county, and city ordinances can violate the constitution by violating separation of church and state.

My example was topical, and you know it.


The 14th amendment makes the 1st amendment applicable to city and state.
How do you think it is that people try to apply "separation of church and state" to city property nativity scenes if the federal first amendment doesn't apply????
You aren't even trying to think this through.


Hahahaha...
I'll ask again to cut through your obfuscation.
WHAT IS THE SECULAR PURPOSE in prohibiting alcohol sales on Sunday?

Over and over again, you avoid the issue and try to dazzle with non-sequiturs.
Address the issue.
WHY Sunday????


Because you ignored what I said, as you continue to do.
I stated EXPLICITLY that 5b was the one typically used in interpreting the 1st amendment.
You ignored the comment.

You can discuss OTHER definitions if you like, but in doing so you commit an absurd logical error...
Suppose I talk about how John used the "jack" on his car.
You turn around and insist that he was using a playing card, instead of a tool to change the tire.

Makes no sense as you're not even talking about what I am saying...
Furthermore, if you're going to try and refute the 1st amendment separation of church and state, you CANNOT refute it logically by talking about a playing card when others are talking about something else entirely...


That's because it's a non-sequitur, and pointless.
It would be like you asking me who made the playing card deck that John used on his car.
You're trying to argue against a blatant misrepresentation of my point, and it's pointless to indulge you.



1) So what you said was another lie.
Try not to accuse me of things I am not saying.
2) His statement talked about "ONLY" religious convictions.
He made no mention of "God's standards if they meet secular standards".
Like I pointed out, he EXPLICITLY CONDEMNED modern re-interpretation of "God's standards" to be more along a "contemporary" view.
If you are unwilling to put 2+2 together, that's your problem.


The problem is that you weren't talking about MY terms.
You were using the analogy which made no sense, because I NEVER MADE ANY ALLEGATION about "all of them".


You ignored the actual message, and criticized the messenger.
Your statements are there for everybody to see.

Oh cut the crap.
You have explicitly demonstrated a prejudice whereby being labelled "liberal" is supposedly an insult.
It goes to show that I recognize how YOU THINK things are "unfair" just because they can be labelled as "liberal", cause you wear your prejudice on your sleeve.


Another lame lie.
I NEVER claimed they were representative.
I even stated in another post that they were NOT representative.


And the obfuscation continues.
These people weren't miscellaneous nobodies picked off the street corner holding signs ranting to the world.
MANY of them represent LARGE organizations. Organizations that are multi-million dollar issues.
U.S. people who GIVE THEM MONEY in amounts that clearly demonstrate your claim of ".00000000000001%" is more of a lame lie.


I'm sorry, but you don't seem to realize you are PROVING MY POINT with regards to these religious zealot extremists...
You try to belittle my documenting their "unchristian" ways, and then YOU YOURSELF repeat their extremist beliefs.
And you don't even realize you're proving my point.


So it was merely "informative".
I swear. I wish we could take a poll to cut through some of the b.s. on this board.
Everybody who thinks that the pastors were just "being informative" raise their hands...


Honestly, I don't care how Christians "should" act.
However, when Christians DO presume to criticize how I "act" based on their bible, I will happily return the favor and point out their hypocrisy.


Who does not? (The IRS wants to know...)
Let me guess. ANOTHER question not answered?
As Benny Franklin said, only death and taxes are certain...


Man. Forest for the trees.
Suppose Jack has to go to school, like every other 9th grader.
Jack complains it's a "burden" for him to have to go to school.

Is that a logical argument?
Is it an argument whereby it makes sense to allow Jack NOT to go to school, yet everybody else still has to?

The issue at hand here is EQUALITY, and if the "Christians" can get out of paying taxes just because it's a "burden", then why the hell can't the rest of us?


The part where a tax prohibits ANY TYPE of "exercise" of your religion.
Can you name me ANY religious function which you are not able to accomplish based on taxes???

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, some people interpret the first amendment liberally towards one side.
YOU are trying to interpret ANY potential difficulty as a prevention of "free exercise thereof", which is absurd.

What's next? Does the fact that the church has to pay for land to place it's building suddenly become a violation of "free exercise thereof"?
You are STILL FREE to exercise your religion if taxes are paid.


ROFLMAO!
It's grammatical interpretation of the spoken word.
Call it "semantics" if you will, but that's NOT a response to the argument.
It's just you whining.

And furthermore, you are missing the point.
The constitution amendment doesn't talk about any SPECIFIC religion.
It talks about the ISSUE of religion.

Not only can't the federal government endorse any SPECIFIC religion, it can't endorse the GENERAL subject of religion.
And "god's standards" should obviously fit under any "general" subject of religion.


I'm sorry, but that argument is just lame.
By the same standard, the Executive Branch could decree that people in the armed forces could not be Lutheran.
Would that be legal in your opinion?
Would it violate the first amendment?

And furthermore, even if we were to accept your distinction as true, can you explain how to enact a constitutional amendment WITHOUT congress???


You keep claiming so...
But it's funny how you habitually FAIL TO TALK about his actual quoted words...


Actually, I am talking about what he ACTUALLY said.
You keep claiming I am wrong, but habitually fail to discuss what he ACTUALLY said.



Gee. You mean you were holding yourself back from criticizing her???
< end sarcasm >

If you've got a Hillary quote you want to talk about, bring it up.
(Preferentially in another thread.)
Until then, it's obvious you want to get out of the kitchen cause you want to apply heat to somebody else...

quote/It's funny how the Christians habitually boast of having power...
My My thats clever....habitually boast.......sounds like a "characterization" from you which doesn't mean it is true.
quote/There was even talk of how GW Bush was supposedly going to "give" them THREE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES...
"give"...another "characterization"......so far with still 1 year to go he has made 4 or 5 nominations with 2 being approved. Are you guaranteeing that none will "fall ill"?
quote/
Talk of how this is a "Christian" nation...
quote/Christians make up 75% of this country.YOUR QUOTE from another section close by
quote/
And then people like you (when it's convenient for them) turn around and pretend you're powerless.
again quite clever how you take a group made up of several hundred different groups BECAUSE they are NOT ALL THE SAME and claim that THEY are ONE ALL POWERFUL group.
quote/
Furthermore, it's amusing how you try to put up a front of powerless Christians, while invoking an impending threat of Islam.
Yup Billions against millions, no threat there. And of course IT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. Those "crusades" that you liberals like to mock were at the end of when the MUSLIMS conquered ALL of Europe and were driven back.
quote/
Are the Muslims about to swarm the U.S.?
3 choices........convert, pay tribute, or die. Their Koran says it. But no .....no Muslims here boss.......Bart Simpson knocked down those buildings and our entire economy.
quote/
I challenge you to give me a percentage of the "anti-religious zealots"...
I challenge you to figure the percentage of his population that Adolf was.
quote/
That is PRECISELY what Huckabee was talking about.
This thread has proven an exercise in obfuscation by people who refuse to acknowledge what Huckabee was actually saying.
Then how come you have to ADD so many words to what he said in order for them to have the "MEANING" that you insist you see. It is in your paranoid mind that such a meaning exists. Did you actually hear what he said AND what he has said about what he said or did you just continue to make it up as you went along.
quote/
He talked about how he was frustrated that society was changing "god's" standards.
so it was the other Christians that he was complaining about? I tried to tell you how they didn't all get along.
quote/
He talked about CHANGING the constitution.
So obviously he had CHANGE in mind.
ahah! a breakthrough.....Murder is against law and gods law. COURTS(mans secular law) DECIDED that abortion was not murder,(does God think so?....may I quote about "knew you before you were born"), science law says that a fetus has/is life, Our founding documents say "LIFE, liberty etc", there is dispute and the Constitution needs amending one way or the other but it needs it. Such a matter is NOT supposed to be a "court decision".PERIOD.
This is ONE example. It does NOT mean that ALL TEN COMMANDMENTS AND EVERY PERSECUTORIAL RELIGIOUS IDEA EVER CONCEIVED is an example.
quote/
You keep trying to obfuscate the issue, but the truth of the matter is that his words speak plainly...
Then how come you have to ADD so many words to what he said in order for them to have the "MEANING" that you insist you see. It is in your paranoid mind that such a meaning exists. Did you actually hear what he said AND what he has said about what he said or did you just continue to make it up as you went along.

You keep INSISTING that what he said means ALL 10 Commandments and anything else religious persecutors have ever said.
quote/
Liar.
I said no such thing.
Well good then. we'll use your definitions then and have just proven that the "amendments" that he wishes to get passed then are NOT unconstitutional. Special side note: If IT is put into the Constitution then HOW could it be unconstitutional?
quote/you
Hahahaha...I'll ask again to cut through your obfuscation.
WHAT IS THE SECULAR PURPOSE in prohibiting alcohol sales on Sunday?
Over and over again, you avoid the issue and try to dazzle with non-sequiturs.
Address the issue.
WHY Sunday????
quote ME/.....pay attention this time.
Not to mention the fact that "pick any random day you want but 1 out of 7 you can't buy alcohol" is not any form of logic secular, religious, or rational
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept1
I'm sorry you listed 1 thru 7 with additional lettering and I didn't realize that I was restricted to 5b.
quote/you
Because you ignored what I said, as you continue to do.
I stated EXPLICITLY that 5b was the one typically used in interpreting the 1st amendment.
You ignored the comment.

You can discuss OTHER definitions if you like, but in doing so you commit an absurd logical error...
Suppose I talk about how John used the "jack" on his car.
You turn around and insist that he was using a playing card, instead of a tool to change the tire.

Makes no sense as you're not even talking about what I am saying...
Furthermore, if you're going to try and refute the 1st amendment separation of church and state, you CANNOT refute it logically by talking about a playing card when others are talking about something else entirely...
___________________________________________

Now read my whole quote:

I'm sorry you listed 1 thru 7 with additional lettering and I didn't realize that I was restricted to 5b. I will however note that if you have to stretch all the way to 5b who is "making the reach" of logic to unreasonable limits.
I didn't dispute nor ignore any of them just because I only quoted 2 of them.(although I did wonder why a "dictionary" would go so far as to say "as a law" in #1 or "a church" in #6)
I did note however that you didn't answer my question in regards to #6. Name the church that is being "established" if it doesn't have or can't have a NAME it can't exist. And don't just make up a gobbledegook name.

and talk to me about NOT addressing what was said(I directly addressed your 5b argument and you just didn't like the fact that it was "stretching" the definition) and rambling on about a bunch of unrelated BS (jacking off a car) and MOST OF ALL.....about not answering a direct question posed now for the FOURTH time. Put a NAME to this "religion" that Huckleberry is attempting "to establish". If you CAN'T NAME IT . IT ISN"T in existence.

quote/YOU
Again, nobody is saying that you can't use your religious values.

ME
Many are and YOU are one of them.
you
Really?
NAME ANY religoius value I am saying you can't have...
Quote me...

me
I can't find a quote where you said I can't have a religious value

Now do you see ANY changes in the WORDING as this progressed.....by you.(have and use are 2 different things).

quote you/
1) So what you said was another lie.
Try not to accuse me of things I am not saying.

Try not to call me a liar when it didn't happen.
__________________________________________
quote/
If you are unwilling to put 2+2 together, that's your problem.

My math is usually OK....When I add 2+2 I usually get 4..............Unlike you who are adding 2+2 and getting 32,937,465,867,352,437,547.84747659 which by the way is an odd number and a decimal therefore impossible to get by adding 2's no matter how many you imagine that you see.
____________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept1
You made up the analogy. I only added to it to illustrate my point in YOUR terms.
The problem is that you weren't talking about MY terms.
You were using the analogy which made no sense, because I NEVER MADE ANY ALLEGATION about "all of them".

It was YOUR analogy and you missed totally that I was making. ALL of them is exactly what I(me and myself just in case you still think this includes you) was adding to your analogy(plus the fact that he only THOUGHT about stealing one instead of actually doing it). Now speaking of "funny angles"(obtuse)how come you CAN'T SEE what is put into YOUR reference and somehow you do see what was NOT put into Huckleberry"s(yes I mock his name too)

____________________________________________
quote/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adept1
So for me to just NAME the website is an "attack".
You ignored the actual message, and criticized the messenger.
Your statements are there for everybody to see.

Yes my statements PROVE that I did look at(read) the websites that you cited and once again I will point out that to NAME them(using their OWN names not a mocking name)is NOT An attack nor as you now claim a criticism so keep on looking until YOU see.


And Oh yea........I didn't quote and reply to EVERY thing you said because this is getting tedious and boring. I did however read and understand most of what you tried to say and have deliberately ignored many things that are correct and didn't need refuting. This is not to say that I didn't just let some things slide by because of tedium and boredom or the fact that LONG arguments ain't NO fun.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein