i am not trying to come off as non-confrontational. that is impossible around non-believers… the gospel and especially Christ are a stumbling block…so i expect to confront and be confront.

I disagree. I manage to talk with believers of all stripes, let alone Christian, about religion and God all the time without it getting confrontational.

I’ve mentioned it before, but JethricOne is someone I know in real life (he’s a coworker) who is a Christian that I talk to all the time about religion in general and Christianity in particular without ever getting confrontational or argumentative about it. In fact, we have a great time doing it. As Ragman said, a lot of it depends on the disposition of those involved.

You’re correct, Ragman, I should have been more precise in my original statements. They were an aside to the main argument, so I was not as careful as I should have been. But I think we’ve clarified my point now, thanks for the correction.

Yes the two systems maybe contradictory, but I’m willing to accept either as they are consistent in themselves. I don’t like the government giving tax breaks for behavior they like, because right or wrong it will always make some group feel they are being chastised. Gay unions are the perfect example. A flat tax would eliminate anyone saying they being treated unfairly. By flat tax I mean we all pay the same percentage of our income as federal tax. What could be unfair about that? As an added benefit, we can almost eliminate the IRS and tax accountants, and yank a whole lot of power out of the Federal Government. My guess is that by most people in the world’s standards, you are wealthy. Is it unfair to expect you to pay taxes?

Now I can see some folks saying it’s not fair that someone who pays more might get a bigger say in how it’s spent. Particularly in this crowd. But it does provide some benefits. The primary one being that it keeps the people from voting themselves a legacy. People that don’t earn money can’t use the government to put a gun to the heads of those who do in order to rob them. We are so close to that now, it’s not even funny. Very little tax is paid by the majority. It is a small and shrinking minority that pay the vast majority of taxes.

There is no way I’m jumping into the debate about the fall of the Roman empire. There were many many causes. But I would also say that Randall’s argument is not without merit.  I believe the family is the building block of society. When the definition of family shifts and changes, society becomes unstable as a result. Note that I am NOT saying that you couldn’t have a stable society in which pretty much any definition of family was the norm. Change creates turmoil, changing something as intrinsic to the fabric of society as family structure creates great turmoil.  Homosexuality was becoming more prevalent and more accepted in Roman society, and shortly after that (in societal terms) they started having their most serious problems. Interestingly enough the societies that defeated them did not accept homosexuality to anywhere near the same degree. So you cannot say Randall’s comments are false out of hand, but neither can he prove them with mathematical certitude. Homosexuality could be a root cause in the fall of the Roman Empire. But I can’t prove it, neither can you disprove it. So I will not argue the topic further, unless you wish to take the burden of proof.

A flat percentage means the wealthy still pay more tax. 

My guess is that by most people in the world’s standards, you are wealthy.

World, yes.  In the US, no.  Are you trying to lump me in your category?

Is it unfair to expect you to pay taxes?

Nope.  I just want the govt to be a better shopper with my freaking money.  I enjoy paved roads, not worrying about getting invaded, etc.  I don’t mind unemployment and welfare to help those who hit hard times to get back on their feet. 

You seem to come across as someone who thinks that they are the important one simply b/c they have wealth.  You imply that poor people are not worthy of being considered citizens.

People that don’t earn money can’t use the government to put a gun to the heads of those who do in order to rob them.

So what’s to keep those with money from stepping on the poor?  What’s to keep a meat packer from selling spoilt meat? 

Homosexuality was becoming more prevalent and more accepted in Roman society, and shortly after that (in societal terms) they started having their most serious problems.

Replace homosexuality with Christianity in that sentence and you have a factual, historical observation.

I don’t like the government giving tax breaks for behavior they like, because right or wrong it will always make some group feel they are being chastised.

Wonder how the poor would feel under your idea of govt.  Somehow “chastised” seems too mild a term.

Gays wouldn’t feel as chastised if they could get married like the heteros.

Gays wouldn’t feel chastised if they could get married like heteros? Well then, there must not be a black man alive that feel like a second class citizen. It’s not what’s in the law. It’s what’s in the heart of the society.

A flat percentage means the wealthy still pay more tax.

Wow, thanks for pointing that out, I’m totally against the idea now. It would be far less than the current scheme. And it would be more faily ditributed. But if you’d prefer, we could just make it a flat amount.

Replace homosexuality with Christianity in that sentence and you have a factual, historical observation.

Care to back that up with a reliable source?

So what’s to keep those with money from stepping on the poor? What’s to keep a meat packer from selling spoilt meat?

The same thing that stops them now. It’s called the law, and it has nothing to do with the tax code.

Hmmm, David’s getting antsy.  Did I push a wrong button or something?

It’s not what’s in the law. It’s what’s in the heart of the society.

Again, you and I are looking at two different definitions.  I refer to society as larger group, such as Americans, while it seems to fit with your arguments that you are using society to mean the rich and priviliged social class.

Care to back that up with a reliable source?

Put up or shut up time!!!
Here is some info on Christianity and the Roman Empire.
Just to clarify, here is my implied statement: “Christianity was becoming more prevalent and more accepted in Roman society, and shortly after that (in societal terms) they started having their most serious problems.” Note I am not implying Christianity as one of the reasons for the fall of Rome in my statement.  Historians, on the other hand…
http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap39.htm
http://demo.lutherproductions.com/historytutor/basic/early/people/constantine.htm
http://www.republic.k12.mo.us/highschool/teachers/tstephen/ancient/romemp-7.htm
I didn’t notice homosexuality listed in them, but if you do find it, I’m sure you’ll let me know.

The same thing that stops them now. It’s called the law, and it has nothing to do with the tax code.

Not if that law is tossed out.  We are talking about the wealthy running the show without poor input.  The reason there are laws against that sort of thing is b/c they did happen.  Public outcry brought about the laws.  That would be the majority of people who pay the small portion of taxes like you stated - the ones you talked about disenfranchising.

The tax code is tax law.  That’s why it is a “code”.  Oh, wait… are you thinking “code” as in somebody sat down with their Space Cadet coder key and encoded tax law into unreadable gibberish?  Granted, it’s a bitch to understand, but it really is written in English, and there is no decoder key.

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

I think Les has this thread on a forum countdown by this point.

A flat percentage means the wealthy still pay more tax.

Let’s say that all I get to eat each day is one ham sandwich, maybe it is tasty maybe it isn’t but that is beside the point. The guy down the street gets a sandwich with chips, maybe the crazy cat lady getting disability only gets half a sandwich and a cookie. Now there is a guy on another street who has a banquet table filled with cheeses, meats, drinks, and pastries. It is probable that he couldn’t even eat all of the food he has each day, but that too is irrelevant.

The government requires everyone to give 10% to keep the government running (don’t ask me how food pays down the debt) and 10% for me is 10% to the guy with the banquet table so in giving his percentage he gives no more or less than me. Is the QUANTITY he gives greater? Of course it is but after he is done giving it he still has a table full of food and I have a sandwich that is 10% smaller than it was before the government stepped in.

Don’t ask me to feel bad for the guy who has everything when all he is asked to do is what everyone else is doing. No more, no less.

You’ve gone so far afield from anything that I’ve actually said or implied, Ragman, that I no longer can recognize what side of the debate I’m on. If you’re just ranting about how awful it is to be poor, I guess you’re enjoying yourself, so who am I to care what you say?

I’ve never written that society is only the privileged or rich. I’ve never written or even implied that I’m even close to being part of that group (the rich or privileged, not society). I don’t think it’s possible for me to have a useful discussion about those things with you, as I don’t think we share a common frame of reference. However, to give you what insight I can offer, and hopefully correct your view of where I’m coming from on this, and by way of a response to Eric’s statements, I’ll make a stab at it.

I think we all have some interesting ideas of what needs are. Some see a Ferrari as a need, some see enough food or water to have the strength to walk a need. Most of us fall somewhere in-between. But few of us really understand the difference between wants and needs. I personally think that people that have stopped worrying about whether they have as much as the guy up the street with the banquet table, and just enjoy their ham sandwich enjoy it very much. Those who complain that it’s not enough tend to think that they are being starved, even if we give them a 2. Most amazing of all, if the guy with the banquet table isn’t being forced to give 50% of it away, he might give 90% away of his own free will. It might be because he stops worrying about holding onto what he has left, and starts thinking about how he can help others.

I also think we all make choices in life. A long time ago, I decided that having a bunch of stuff did not make me very happy, but that doing stuff I liked to do, does. So I chose a career doing things I enjoy and make a lot less money than I could have. I’ve taken a few moral stands that have cost me a great deal of income. I think that most people make choices about their financial future without ever realizing that they are choosing. But that doesn’t mean that there was never an opportunity. Although it may be harder for some to make those choices, I think that they are available to everyone in America. I know people who’ve started out with little hope of ever having any material comforts, that live quite comfortably now, and others that started out with every advantage and are living hand to mouth (in fact, many more of the later than the former). It’s far more about what you’re willing to sacrifice and than what you’re given. Just as I believe that even material wealth is a lot more about how you spend than what you earn.

As a result, I think that it’s unfair that someone who has made the choices to earn less, should then be given a disproportional tax break. I don’t think that a person who gave up what I value in life to obtain material wealth should be penalized for making that choice. A flat tax is fair because no one ever guaranteed you enough to eat. You are guaranteed the right to pursue wealth, not to have wealth. After that, it’s up to you.

I want to be clear that I do not think that wealthy people are inherently evil, as you seem to think. I think what you’re doing is called projecting. Because you would take advantage of people if given the chance, they would. But you’ve got nothing to support the idea that that would actually happen. I think reality is much more like the story in Matthew 18:23-35.

Hope that gives you some insight. Oh, I don’t believe the tax code is law. It’s code. Agencies make codes, legislature makes law. So you can keep your decoder ring, I think you’ll need it. Annie is likely trying to get through to you right now to buy more Ovaltine.

Maybe I didn’t make my point clearly enough but I am also for a flat tax with 0 loopholes and no double taxation on all income including the interest from investments. Taxing the principle would constitute double taxation, much like all sales tax is double taxation, but if the percentage is set at say 15% then there must be no way that anyone could find some legal (or illegal) means to dodge paying his or her fair share.

My problem is with people who say that the rich pay more than I do when they are looking at dollars only and not at the percentage. If I pay 26% and it amounts to $3000.00 a guy who earned a million dollars still pays more than I do if he only pays 1% ($10,000.00) but he also gets to live like a king. Imagine if he paid the same 26% and it was now $260,000.00. Now we are paying the same amount in taxes.

I’ve never written that society is only the privileged or rich.

Never said you did.  I said the definition fit with your argument.

I’ve never written or even implied that I’m even close to being part of that group (the rich or privileged, not society).

You talk about how taxing the rich like it’s a personal issue, and would like to have fiscal voting power on par with your earnings.  You do a good job of making yourself sound like you have some money.

I want to be clear that I do not think that wealthy people are inherently evil, as you seem to think.

No I don’t and have not said so - I said I didn’t want to live in a plutocracy.  I don’t believe wealthy people should be given the right to rule on account of wealth, but neither do I believe that they should be forced to give up their riches ala communism.  My belief is that monetary wealth itself does not convey intelligence nor wisdom upon it’s owner.

People that don’t earn money can’t use the government to put a gun to the heads of those who do in order to rob them.

You certainly seem to think the unemployed are inherently evil. 

I think reality is much more like the story in Matthew 18:23-35.

Yeah, well, you’ll just have to excuse my heathen views if I think reality is a little more like US history. 
Somehow I don’t think the bank will forgive my mortgage if I worshiped them.

Oh, I don’t believe the tax code is law. It’s code. Agencies make codes, legislature makes law.

So how does the govt make us to follow the tax code?

Wow, I complete agreement with Eric here. Had to happen sooner or later.

We also follow all the FCC, FDA, FAA, and ATF regulations that have never been specifically approved by the legislative branch. The agencies have been empowered do this by the legislative body. I think it’s wrong, perhaps the biggest wrong in our government, that non-elected people are making rules (often without having a clue about what they are doing, particularly the FDA) that affect our day to day life much more than the laws being passed by congress. But that’s a whole other debate.

To everyone… and Randal

Before I get started, I want to acknowledge that I know this post is old, but I could not resist, and I wanted to post a few quotes…

“..our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry”
[Thomas Jefferson]

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
[Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814]

“…. same sex realations and its acceptance in society lead to the downfall of the greeks and romans. “

Apparently you do not know very much about history, you have often proven you lack of knowledge on recent historical events, but now you have proven your ignorance with Hellenistic and Roman history as well as your poor spelling (just run it through a word processor, it will do you some good). The events leading to the fall of their particular civilizations were not for any of the reasons you seem to believe. They neither fell because of their homosexual relationships nor the tolerance thereof.

The fall of the Roman Empire is due to a complex multitude of events that were unforeseeable to the many who lived in and ruled thee empire. One was the fact that it was an Empire if immense size, and to maintain control over such a large land mass was much more difficult then. Constantly defending your borders against the tribes and nations that fall just outside your borders, defending the interior against the many people who would rise up against your government for conquering them; next to those minor problems, then they had two of their largest enemies always at heir doors. The Celts in the British Isles and land of Germania, and then they were also fighting off the Persian Empire to the south. After you discount the many external enemies you may then begin to count the enemies that reside in the belly of the beast itself. Roman emperors like Nero, Caesar, Augustus, Octavian, among many others. If they were not spending their empires treasury into debt or burning down Rome itself just to build a new palace, they were plotting against people they felt threatened by who happened to be in controlling positions. This was typically a bad thing for the empire because these same people who helped hold the empire together. Further more the demise of the empire, as in all civilizations come when the people become complacent. Complacency in the Roman Empire lead to the successful raid of the Huns against both the Western and Eastern Roman Empire, and the successful campaigns of the Visigoths against the empire. There is of course much more that lead to the decline of the Roman Empire… but this is up to you to look up and understand, however, special attention should be paid to Constantine and the Nicean Conference that lead to the compilation of the “Holy Bible”; it Constantine’s last chance to reunite the Roman Empire, only to delay the inevitable.

The Bible was compiled of the most popular books of the time, and keep in mind, not everyone in the empire was Christian. St Thomas’ book never made it in, and he was one of Jesus’ closest disciples.

If you’re a Christian and are not following all of the laws in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy you may not be admitted into heaven; reason:: when Jesus came tell the people of earth that he is here to save us form our sins, he also said that he was not here to change the laws of his father. That means that if you are Christian you must still sacrifice bulls, stone people who where mixed cloth, et cetera.

“…there is a reason it is against the law in America as well.”

As it was stated by someone else, homosexuality is not against the law, and homosexual marriages are not recognized by the state. And ‘tis true that marriage was a civil institution before it was a religious practice.

“…there are many americans that need people to do the thinking for them. it is called training. just like children need their parents to do the thinking for them.”

Well apparently you are one of them. You seem to be poorly educated and contemptuously rambling on about the same subjects you have little understanding of. Second, children do not need someone to think for them, they need someone to guide them through life. Teach them lessens that they have learned, such lessons as being burned by a stove. Not by burning them, but by conveying it them through communication. Of course we are not always able to prevent our children form being injured or from the many other manners that they will learn in a way that we would prefer they do not. Alas, that is life, and we should not try, otherwise we will not have a human being that will grow from experience, we may only find a robotic machination and simile of what we might believe is a human being. I believe someone had already said that we should raise children to think for themselves, I must agree, I would be disgusted to see more automatons than we already have running around this tiny globe.

“…the rapeist, murderer, drunk driver, etc. need someone to do the thinking for them, because apparently they can not do it for themselves. but if they had their way they could rape, murder etc, with no obligation or consequence. i do not believe that anyone should make people believe a certain way.”

Actually the rapist, murderer, drunk driver, et cetera do think for themselves, they simply choose to perform actions that are against our social and civil laws.

“…i do not believe that anyone should make people believe a certain way. it should not be against the law in america to be an atheist, a witch, a republican, a homosexual, but same sex marriage is a counterfit of the real thing. marriage is what it is a covenant between a man and woman. but just because you and i dont agree on that does not mean that we have to be enemies or that you have to be disgusted with me.”

It’s not against the law… some people would just prefer it that way. Marriage is not a covenant, unless you are Christian, but then, you may not recognize that it was a civil affair far before it was a religious “sanctity”.

“ i am only expressing my beliefs. i am not telling you what you should believe, only what i believe and live for and am willing to die for. so what if i am a moron to you and most on this site. i happen to enjoy being a person that deals with lifes struggles like the next guy, and also life joys. i am not the most educated man in the world but i do have convictions and appreciate anyone who does so, even if they oppose mine….p.s. Jesus was more than a dude…peace out!”

Great! That’s exactly one of the many freedoms we enjoy in the United States. Then you go on to tell us that you are not the most educated man in the word but you have convictions. You should educate yourself so you are not enslaved by your convictions. By the way, many scholars, both Christian and academic alike agree that there were more than one persons claiming to be the Christ, so no, Jesus was not more than just a dude, he was not even a real person.

With that, I will leave you with a great song from Bad Religion –

Spirit Shine Lyrics

shed a tear for the criminal, give him something to believe
light a fire for the miserable, give the darkness some meaning
closed wounds harbor pestilence, when you lick them from within
charity has a redolence chastity cannot rescind

spirit shine, it’s a sign
of a troubled mind (tortured mind)
spirit shine all the time
can render you blind

you can take it all to heart or throw it all away
you can give until you’re dry and sucked of all your gleam
you can fake another cry and compromise your dream

cling tight to the parable - let it dominate your life
create a God who’s infallible - give your leader some respite
clouds wounds harbor pestilence - when you lick them from within
rosy smiles lose their radience - when you take it on the chin

Wow, it’s absolutely amazing how reactionary you freaks can get.  If any of you thinks this move to ammend the constitution has any chance in hell of passing you really need to put down the pipe and get some fresh air. 

Listen, there always have been ultra-conservatives talking about our country’s “[great christian heritage]” and how we should codify that into law.  Prohibition was the worst example of this by far.  What you’re seeing is simply their reaction to the new pushes to 1.) ban the pledge of allegiance (at least the post-1950’s version) in schools and 2.) redefine marriage to include same sex unions.

To be honest, I don’t really give a $#it about either but there are enough on the far right and left who do to make this a politcal issue worth pursuing for certain folks (Mayor of San Fran on the left, the guy from Georgia on the right).  My money is that the anti-pledge lawsuit will be overturned on a technicality in the Supreme Court (the guy suing doesn’t have custody of his “harmed” child), a Civil Union law will be passed (as long as it’s not called “marriage” the conservatives will back down on it), and this ammendment, like many attempted before, and many that will be attempted after, will disappear sooner than later.

Also, for you folks who keep “quoting” President Bush’s alleged comments that gays/witches/insert-random-minority-here shouldn’t be considered citizens, I’ll indulge you… show me!  I know you think he’s the f’in anti-Christ or something, but I’d be curious to see just how spurious your sources are on this - my oney’s that it’ll make for a good laugh.

Hahahahahahahahahah I just saw the Rob Sherman link “[proving]” his assertion that Bush Sr. didn’t think atheists should be considered ctitizins.  Haha, that’s rich… thanks for the laugh.

Oh no! Jimbo is laughing at us proving beyond all doubt that we must be wrong! Woe is me, how can I possibly come back from such an unassailable attack? Jimbo MUST know more than we do if he can run so many ‘ha’s together in a single chain.

You don’t believe Bush Sr.  actually said what Sherman reported?

If he doesn’t have proof, then it must not be true.

And it’s very unlikely that Bush Sr. would hold that position too.  I mean, since when has the US ever legally stated that atheists should not be considered citizens?  The US has always had a warm and comforting tolerance for non-theists.

At least since 1997, when South Carolina became the last of seven states to finally overturn its laws against atheists holding public office.

And the Pew poll in 2001, demonstrating that about a third of the American populace has “very unfavorable” attitudes toward atheists? I’m sure that atheists have never even -noticed- that, themselves.  They were probably shocked into stunned silence when they heard those results (but, but, but we thought everyone liked us jus’ fine!)

You’re right Jimbo!  Atheists are just a bunch of reactionary freaks! 

Whatever.

Jimbo, reacted to our reactions so he can hardly talk. Besides, and I can’t believe I even need to say it, how seriously should we take someone named “Jimbo” anyway?

JimBob said: - Listen, there always have been ultra-conservatives talking about our country’s “[great christian heritage]” and how we should codify that into law. Prohibition was the worst example of this by far.

Yeah, “bo”, but you seem to forget that prohibition was codified into law.

In 1918, Congress passed the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. States ratified the Amendment in 1919. By the 1930’s, America had tired of the temperance movement’s success at legislating moral behavior, and the 18th Amendment was repealed.

The temperance movement was concerned with the “moral fabric” of society and was supported primarily by the middle classes.

Wow, Brock - do you actually think I [missed that day in history class when they talked about prohibition] or something.  That’s rich.  Hehe - why didn’t you post a URL link to an article about it or something to further flex your condisending little bitch nerd muscles.

Perhaps, I should rephrase… “there always have been ultra-conservatives talking about our country’s “[great christian heritage]” and how we should codify that into law. They actually succeeded, temporarily, with Prohibition but for the most part, these attempts are common and commonly failures”

Honestly, I don’t have a problem with anybody being atheist, or Budhist, or Baptist for that matter - do whatever the fuck you want, it’s a free country.  But running around quoting bullshit from the Internet to “[prove]” that you’re a member of a secretly oppressed minority and therefore the victims of a horrible injustice… well… get in line - life’s not fucking fair and just because people don’t like you, nowiser, that might be because you’re a dick - not because of some right wing conspiracy. 

Like the guy from California who is suing the government about the pledge.  That guy’s a dick and he’s trying to use lawyers to prove his pissy little point even though 90% (not just the 1/3 nowiser’s worried about) of the American Public think the pledge, and schools’ approaches to it is OK. 

But of course, it’s the fault of some evil Bush conspiracy that some people have “very unfavorable” opinions of atheists, right?

Jimbo,

life’s not fucking fair and just because people don’t like you, nowiser, that might be because you’re a dick

Interesting assertion, Jimbo.  Unfortunately, I’ve had more than my fair of experiences where people liked me just fine -until- they asked me what church I went to.  I don’t push my atheism, and people are always surprised when I answer the question

“I don’t go to church.  I’m an atheist.”

This is sufficient to piss off a certain number of people (they are always either complete strangers, or casual acquaintances).  Which is always kind of shocking to me.  I mean, hey, I barely know you, why are you asking me this in the first place?  And then, why are you getting pissed when I answer?  You -asked-.  If they didn’t want to know, why did they ask?

As for the pledge, and 90% of people thinking something’s right, since when has that actually made it right? 

As for the 1/3 of people who “don’t like me,”

I doubt they personally don’t like me.  They have a prejudice against atheists.  It’s pretty impersonal.  Most people who hate Jews, or black people, don’t hate some specific Jew, or black person-- they have an impression that certain things are “true” about Jews and blacks, and so they dislike or distrust them.  Of course, many of these people have specific black or Jewish or (insert select minority group here) “friends” that they don’t lump in with the rest, because they’re “different from those other ones.”

Most of the theists that I know don’t actively dislike me.  Hell, my office mate’s a Catholic, she thinks I’m just peachy.  One of the women I processed loans with was raised as a Baptist.  She thought I was just great.  In fact, what surprises me is that 1/3 of people could actually express how distasteful they find atheists, when most of the theists I -know- actually don’t seem to have any problem with my lack of belief.  It’s only complete strangers, or people who don’t actually know me, who seem to ask, and then make an immediate character judgment based on the response they get.  Kind of like that 1/3 of respondents to the Pew survey.  I bet dollars to donuts that, if you started naming specific atheists to them, particularly ones that they knew, they would probably say “oh, well, yeah, he’s an OK sort.  Never did anything to harm me.  Friendly enough. etc etc.”

But running around quoting bullshit from the Internet to “[prove]” that you’re a member of a secretly oppressed minority and therefore the victims of a horrible injustice… well… get in line - life’s not fucking fair

You assert it’s bullshit, therefore it must be bullshit.  I say again.  Whatever, dude.  There’s nothing secret about it.  It’s also not some sort of “horrible” oppression.  It’s hardly slavery-- it’s not like I can’t find work.  The most it’s ever cost me is some mild annoyance with people who try to use their lunch hours to convert my ass, or being denied housing.  In an urban environment, that’s irritating, but it’s not like we didn’t eventually find another place to live.

So it’s not the bigotry that I’m worried about, Jimbo.  People like you worry me NOT AT ALL.  It’s the institutionalization of such bigotry, and govt. support of the same, that irritates me.  I have absolutely no interest in changing your mind, or trying to get you to “like” me, or anything else.  Frankly, you strike me as the kind of guy that I’d roll my eyes at and walk away from, if I ever ran into you in real life.  In other words, an intellectual dwarf with a big-ass chip on his shoulder.  What, did some atheist molest you when you were a kid, or something? If “under God” is removed from the pledge, are you going to undergo some huge crisis of faith?  Will civilization crumble?  Will you be forced to sit in the back of the bus?

Quit whining, bitch.  You don’t like Newdow and the law?  Tough shit.  Life ain’t fair.

But of course, it’s the fault of some evil Bush conspiracy that some people have “very unfavorable” opinions of atheists, right?

Jeez.  Work on those reading comprehension skills, Jimbo.  No one ever asserted a causal relationship between Bush’s remark and the public’s general perception of atheists.  Bush couldn’t orchestrate a “conspiracy” to escape from a wet paper bag.  He’s just a reflection of a general contempt that the public holds for atheists.  Not cause-- symptom.

Atheists shouldn’t waste their time trying to get the general public to “understand” them, or “like” them.  There are plenty of people who thought those “uppity niggers” should just quit crying. Civil rights aren’t won by catering to the likes of YOU Jimbo.  They’re won by taking cases to the courts, forcing legal recognition of inequality, despite the general population’s desire to just ignore the issue.

In other words, civil rights are acquired by people who, like Newdow, tell people like -you- “bite my shiny metal ass.”

And my next marriage proposal goes out to Nowiser.  *SMOOCH*

Gosh, [blush]

I feel all warm and tickly inside!  You wanna play together at recess?  :lick:

Yeah, let’s beat the crap out of that little snot Jimbo and then practice kissing behind the dumpsters. 

hi
I am one of those foriegn devils you guys get upset about from time to time.
I just skimmed this page to get a taste of the issues you where concerned with,but here is my ten cents worth
It s incredibly dangerous to allow theocrats to gain the position that you guys have allowed,its also happening here in the UK to a lesser but growing degree.
A theocrat who has the ear of the ruling political elite can use the political & legal machine to impose a deeply flawed doctrine
on those people who they cannot control through their religous sanctions.
The politicos in their usual insincere way become pious to gain access to a huge block of votes.
The reason why religions proscribe anything other than male female relationships has always fascinated me. I dont care for the arcane moral code of the bible it is counter intuitive to the needs of a modern technological society.
I do hope a more holistic humanist set of moral codes based on logic and compassion develop in our countries before the more deluded and fanatical among us decide to bring about the armegedon they believe in using our own WMDs
sincerely n

Hehe - nowiser, you really remind me of some of the folks I went to school with… those Berkley types that protest because… ehhh… it’s Saturday and they don’t have anything better to do.  I like how you think I must obviously be “[an intellectual dwarf with a chip on my shoulder]” since 1.) I disagree with you and 2.) am obviously having a good time pissing you off.

Let me once again rephrase since you’re obviously assuming the worst about me…

Relax, ultraconservatives/theocrats/Jerr Falwells/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-them have always been pulling this shit, but the chances of this constitutional ammendment actually passing are fucking nil.

...that’s really what I was trying to get at in the first place.  As for getting denied housing - hey, that does suck and, if your accusation is in fact true, you should be able to sue under the Fair Housing (or whatever the hell it’s called) act.  The funny part is that I think the 1950’s law adding the words “Under God” to the pledge could/should be challenged and overturned - but trying to ban the pledge, as a whole, from schools is just going to fail and incite reactions like the one at the top of this thread.

But I am curious - do you think everyone who disagrees with you is beneath you and/or less intelligent than you?

BTW nowiser - you’re a dick.  Did I forget to mention that?