An Atheist in an ocean of Theists

Breakdown,

That's what happens when you oppress,  discriminate, deny civil liberties, due process and human rights from a  group of people.  The LDS Church among many other zealot idiots need to keep their noses out of other peoples lives.  The church has a responsibility to respect the secularity of our government for this very reason.

If I were a devout muslim, living in this country and my fellow muslims were suddenly cast into the role of the voting majority and we  passed legislation requiring a woman to wear a burka, because, to us, it was considered indecent for a woman to show her face in public,  would you protest?  Would you have say it was wrong for me to force the tenets of my faith on you????  YES YOU WOULD!

I don't care what anyone wants for themselves, spiritually.  When they try to force me to adhere to their dogma, through unconstitutional legislation.  I HAVE AN ISSUE!  That is oppression at it's very worst and it's the very reason the pilgrims came to America. 

-D-

Breakdown,

Bigotry, Discrimination, intolerance and oppression by religion, ALL breed conflict.  If the church knew it's place in our society, that being the private lives of those that wish to take part, then there wouldn't be any issues.  However, christians don't realize that many of us don't even recognize your gawd!!  We don't want the tenets of your religion shoved down our throats.  We can only hope that the supreme court will get rid of that ridiculousness.  ;)

Don

p.s. I am going to have my say whether you approve it or not.

Since you are too close-minded to allow my posts, I will post it here.....

NO THANKS!!!!!

OBAMA-BIDEN 2008!

Turns out that Joe Wurzelbacher from the Toledo event is a close relative of Robert Wurzelbacher of Milford, Ohio. Who’s Robert Wurzelbacher? Only Charles Keating’s son-in-law and the former senior vice president of American Continental, the parent company of the infamous Lincoln Savings and Loan. The now retired elder Wurzelbacher is also a major contributor to Republican causes giving well over $10,000 in the last few years.

Does any of this make Joe the Plumber a bad guy? Of course not. In fact, after that ill-fated night at the Watergate, he may finally be giving plumbers a good name. But at a debate where John goes full bore on Obama for guilt-by-association with William Ayers (and dodges a bullet by Obama not mentioning Keating Five), the press is going to bring it back front and center by midday tomorrow once they delve deeper into the most popular plumber in America.

credit

http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/10/15/joe-the-
plumber-wurzelbacher-related-to-charles-keating-oops>

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Joe+related+to
+Keating

WHAT WILL MCCAIN THE INSANE DO NEXT!!!???

-D-

P.S.  Possible realtive of Keating, Not a licensed Plumber makes less than 250K per year.  Couldn't buy a 250k business without putting down about 1M and he owes Ohio back taxes.  JOE is a liar!

I love how the man being interviewed from The Southerland Group today was never stating his opinion as to why the definition of marriage should remain that which it currently is, that of course being only between a man and woman.    They can't do it without bringing the word god or sanctity into it.  The truth is there is no valid argument against it.  This is just more 1st Amendment raping garbage from the Paleocons.

The sancitity of marriage has no bearing in the law.  Everyone's interpretation of 'sanctity' differs.  So I think they should actually do away with the term 'marriage' with respect to the state and laws.  EVERYONE  wanting the benefits of what is currently given in marriage, should enter into a civil union in the eyes of the law.  The law should only recognize these unions.   Marriage should be left to the individuals church descretion as far as it's validity.  That way everyone is happy. 

I also agree that no church should have to recognize gay marriage.  However, I don't think it's a church these people are trying to please.  I know I could care less about what any church thinks of my marriage.  So, if we invoke civil unions, they should apply to everyone and marriage should be a term for the individual's faith or lack thereof

While I think Palin did a bang up job by doing better than I ever expected, given her lousy press interviews, Biden was clearly the winner.  Despite Fox's polls, most unbiased polls show Biden as the winner.  Here's a few examples:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/
poll/2008/oct/03/palin.biden.debate.election

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/02/biden-palin-electi
on-oped-cx_cs_1002debatepoll.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/02/politics/ho
rserace/entry4497035.shtml

What are you thoughts? 

John McCain is a showman to be sure.  From his ridiculous choice in VP's to his latest political stunt with the "bail out" discussion.   McCain is a joke.  He cares more about his own career than he does the people. 

It has become evident that the man knows nothing about the economy of the country, because he doesn't even admit we even have a problem.  Additionally the man doesn't have a clue when it comes to the Iraq conflict.  All these idiots that say "The Surge Worked" aren't amongst the families that are still losing their loved ones. 

http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html

What I find interesting is that according to the  Department of State, McCain isn't even eligible for the seat.

As per the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, the Church has no say.  Legislators that consider the church are not doing their job.  Like judges, their are suppose to be impartial to unconstitutional agenda.  They are suppose to only consider that which is legal for them to consider and nothing else.  Laws respecting an establishment of religion, are not allowed.  PERIOD!    In the U.S. only in Utah do we even see things like this in the news.   Wake up people.  Your 1st Amendment is being violated.

-D-

Remember in November, that we don't need anymore  idiots, like Bush and McCain, destroying the economy.  It's time to bring in the people that actually care about this country and it's people.  OBAMA 2008!

I think McCain is a weasel. I wouldn't vote for him, if I were a Republican either. Actually, I know a few Republicans that'll be voting for Obama in November.

-D-

They need to legalize it.  When are we gonna quit fighting that losing nonsensical battle?

-D-

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights. It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, as it guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, it requires that a wall of separation be maintained between church and state. It reads:

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

The roots of the First Amendment can be traced to a bill written by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) in 1777 and proposed to the Virginia Legislature in 1779. ₁ It guaranteed freedom of (and from) religion. After an impassioned speech by James Madison, and after some amendments, it became law on 1786-JAN-16. ₂

In the spring of 1778, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia, PA. They resolved three main religious controversies. They:

• Decided that there would be no religious test, oath or other requirement for any federal elected office
• Allowed Quakers and others to affirm (rather than swear) their oaths of office
• Refrained from recognizing the religion of Christianity, or one of its denominations, as an established, state church.

But there was no specific guarantee of religious freedom.

Jefferson was pleased with the constitution, but felt it was incomplete. He pushed for legislation that would guarantee individual rights, including what he felt was the prime guarantee: freedom of and from religion. Madison promised to promote such a bill, in order to gain support for the ratification of the constitution by the State of Virginia. In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights.

The text of the First Amendment:

Some early draft amendments to the religion section were:

• James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
• House Select Committee, JUL-28 "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,"
• Samuel Livermore, AUG-15 "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."
• House version, AUG-20 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." (Moved by Fisher Ames)
• Initial Senate version, SEP-3 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
• Final Senate version, SEP-9 "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
• Conference Committee "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The final wording was accepted by the House of Representatives on 1789-SEP-24; and by the Senate on 1789-SEP-25. It was ratified by the States in 1791.

Shortly after Thomas Jefferson was elected president, some Baptists from Connecticut asked that he declare a national day of fasting in order to help the country recover from a bitterly fought presidential campaign. He disagreed, feeling that the Federal government should not recognize a day set aside for religious reasons. In his reply of 1802-JAN-1, he stated:"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The "wall of separation" term has become a common expression to describe the concept pioneered in the United States that the government and churches should keep out of each other's way. Unfortunately, this has been interpreted by many teachers, principals and school boards so strictly in recent years that religion has become a forbidden topic in many public schools. As a result, many public schools have become religion-free zones. Many children are only partially educated; they remain ignorant of the immense impact, both for good and for evil, that religion has had on the American culture throughout history.

Religious minorities frequently suffer a loss of freedom in those countries which do not have a wall of separation. Some extreme examples in the past decade have been:

• Laws interpreted as requiring a divorce if a husband writes a book that is critical of the established religion.
• Capital punishment as punishment for speech critical of the state religion.
• Capital punishment for those who change their religious faith, unless it is to the state religion.
• Laws prohibiting women from working outside the home.

In 1986, on the 200th anniversary of Virginia's call for a Bill of Rights, 200 American leaders signed the Williamsburg Charter reaffirming their belief in the importance of the First Amendment. In 1995, President Clinton delivered an important speech affirming the importance of religious freedom.

The First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN conducts a public opinion poll on an annual basis. The results for the year 2000 show that support for first amendment freedoms is not particularly strong in some areas.  First Amendment Center director, Kenneth Paulson,  said that "While Americans respect the First Amendment as an ideal, increasingly they're ambivalent when it protects offensive ideas or troubling speech or art or music." The results for their poll taken in 2000 show:

• Two thirds of American adults favor the banning of hate speech. This troubles many civil rights supporters. As Ken Paulson said: "The problem with that is it's so easy to characterize what someone else says that offends you as 'hate speech.' "
• 53% favor the banning of speech critical of religions. [Author's note: That is particularly troubling because it would criminalize even the most innocuous criticism of racism, sexism, and homophobia policies established by religious groups.] Paulson said. "That's an astonishing number. Are we really ready to say that you can't talk about religion in the public sector because it might offend someone of another faith? "
• "37% of those polled couldn't name even one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Those freedoms are: the right to worship, speak, publish, assemble, and raise grievances with the government." ₄

1. James Davidson and Os Guiness, editors, "Articles of Faith, Articles of Peace: The Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy". Hunter, Washington DC (1990).
2. E.S. Gaustad, "Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation", Harper & Row, New York NY, (1987)
3. A.A. Lipscomb & A.E. Bergh, editors, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson", Washington, (1907), Vol. 16, P. 281
4. Dave Clark, "Survey: First Amendment support waning," at: http://www.family.org/ 

• The Freedom Forum Online web site provides detailed coverage of First Amendment issues. See: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/ 
• "First Amendment Cyber-Tribune" is hosted by the Casper Star-Tribune. It is an extensive site, describing all aspects of First Amendment rights. It also lists dozens of free-speech web sites and groups. See: http://fact.trib.com/ (Last updated in 2004)
• "First Amendment Center" promotes consensus on matters of religious expression in the schools, and religious liberty in American life. See: http://www.fac.org/
• TeAchnology is a "web portal for educators." They U.S. Constitution Teaching Theme page has many hyperlinks to Constitution resources at: http://www.teach-nology.com/

Copyright ? 1996 to 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2006-MAR-02
Author: B.A. Robinson

The previous information was take from the following website:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm

also see:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a
mendI_religions53.html

To view more from Pat,  please visit: 

http://www.liveleak.com/user/patcondell