Ive always taken any reference to "God" as a secular God, at least when it comes to our government. Its pretty damn cocky to think it means only "your" god. You cant throw the term "god" around and exclusively relate it to religion either. I can believe in God and fully believe all organized religion is a scam.

I have no beef with God being referred to in our government. I do have a beef with religion trying to instill their beliefs via the government or using my tax dollars to push ideology. Faith based initiatives is a prime example.. how is this fair... "Oh, I see you are NOT a religious soup kitchen, sorry no FUNDING for you". Yet, Moonies get 2 million of our tax dollars for abstinence courses to be taught in our public schools. thats just unreal. Thats not America.

Wouldnt it be something is Islam had a 51% stake in our country...
where would Christians be when Muslims try to get prayer 3 times daily in school? Or they want a copy of the Koran displayed in the entrance of a court? Do you think theyd be right there advocating for them?

All I can say is my opinion, I wouldnt want all laws based on that :)

Nativity scenes on Public land should not be a problem as long as all religions can do other things and Atheists can come and go as they please but not in governemtn buildings or their surrounding areas.....I can see how some people throw a fit about that, BUT IMO thats just silly. If someone wants to set a booth up, with city permission, to hand out flyers on their religion at the beach, so be it...as long as the city approves them all and atheists too.

ten commandments at the courthouse I disagree with becuase it gives the impression that all the laws upheld in the building behind it are based on those and if you dont believe in those than youre already at a disadvantage...That im not a fan of

dola...

Since Blackadar thought the same thing you did, Flasch, the misunderstanding about my point was most likely my fault. I apologize for being harsh and calling you a tool.

Im fine with public speech just not inside or surrounding institutional buildings, and Im NOT okay with Religious speak by institutions. We may be closer on this than I thought...

Im not one for keeping people's religions quiet, Im for exposing and talking about all...just in appropriate places.

no worries, i find debate fun....I love this stuff AND you dont have to worry about friends getting mad like in RL

Um...they do. There's a chaplain for both the House and the Senate. They also invite in outsiders occasionally for special prayers and invocations. Most state legislatures do as well. While some leave out "Jesus" in favor of a more generic "god," many do not.

As to whether this is a "Christian" nation or not, see my post above. In (think it was 1896...) the U.S. Supreme Court cited more than 70 legal precedents to indicate that it unequivocally IS a Christian nation. More recent court decisions have clearly refuted this claim. While I understand you may agree more with the latter courts, it would be wise for those who do to recognize the existence of the previous opinion and allow it to inform your arguments.

Regardless of which courts were correct, the ideal that some desire of a nation where all religions hold equal footing, where Christianity is not a fundamental component of institutions--law books, government practice, public schools, etc.--is still a long way off. We are less than 100 years away from a time when "freedom of religion" meant little more than "freedom of denomination within Christianity" in our nation. To claim that we are already there and that Christianity is somehow being newly "imposed" on others is historically ignorant. It is not being imposed, but rather being slowly shifted OUT of the public and into the private sector. Despite the emergence of a politically active Religious Right and the religiously devisive recent elections, we are not historically moving TOWARD a theocracy (as the idiots in our news media have been touting lately), but slowly AWAY from what used to be--less than 100 years ago--far more of a theocracy than it is today. (Example: In 1952 Eisenhower added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you imagine trying to do something similar today? "Let's make 'God bless America' the national anthem." Yeah, right. It might have passed with flying colors in 1925, but not today.)

Most of the Religious Right are not trying to impose religion on anyone, but trying to preserve (or return to) our nation's historical--rather than modern--understanding of the role of faith in our institutions and society. (For the record, I disagree with their methods wholeheartedly. I, too, desire to see a more Christian nation, but this is biblically mandated to be done through love, personal relationships, individual transformation, and good needs, not socio-policial pressure and gerrymandering.)

They are actually completely disruptive and exclusionary. Absolutely. Imagine you are a Muslim or an atheist, hopefully thats is as far as i need to go.

A court, a park etc.. is owned by the government, which is in turn operated with our tax dollars. That nativity scene you mention, sits on PUBLIC land, owned by the STATE. That Courthouse, same thing. You can have all the nativity scenes you want, just put them on PRIVATE land. There are dozens of private parks in my city, most are owned by churches. They have every right to do whate ever they want and they do. No one has ever complained and I live in one of the most liberal cities in the country. I just dont understand why you think everyone who doesnt believe in your god should have to split the bill for your nativity scene or ten commandments monument. Do it on your time and tab, not my governments.

If a senator or congressman wanted to challenge that I would be behind him/her...but if they are ok with it as it is now then so be it....but if/when someone effected challenges it, I will certianly understand their viewpoint.



hey, i agree, if through those things above, the whole world ends up one religion than so be it....I doubt it will but if through those than who can argue with that.

Prayer (as I'm using it) is an action - sexuality is more of a concept. The two aren't comperable. A better comparision is belief in God = sexuality.

But you're right, I'm speaking more from institutional speech rather than a personal speech. I don't care if someone wants to pray in school or in the middle of the street. I do care when someone in a position of authority - in my workplace, in my kids' school, at a school sports event - wants to stop everything and everyone to have led or planned prayer.

Two points:

1. To take another step, I'd say that the expression of one's belief in God and the expression of sexuality are really what we're talking about. Action = action. And I think that's where most of our social troubles arise. We don't care what other people believe. We just don't want them to believe it where we can hear it. :D

2. I'd agree with everything you said in the second paragraph except the bit about the workplace. But that's a different issue.

I'm one of those folks who believe that a business owner should be allowed to run his/her business however they want, and if that includes a morning prayer with all of the employees, there's nothing wrong with that -- or at least it isn't any more wrong requiring morning exercises. If a worker doesn't like it, they can work elsewhere.

There are all sorts of caveats and exclusions to this position, of course. An obvious one would be jobs where one worked for the state (though I don't extend this to jobs and companies that perform contract services for the state). I also exclude large companies, because I think corporations are really more public entities and have greater social responsibility than small business entities. There are more, but I don't have the energy to go into it right now. :)

So, other than the blanket inclusion of workplaces, I agree with what you said above.

Ah, so you've come back to agree with our original point. And that is the government can and does prevent expression of religion on public property, while allowing expression of other ideas such as homsexuality on public property.

I don't see where the Bill of Rights states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of homosexuality, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

Well, if youre wanting to think homosexuality is a idea, then i guess you'll think that.

How can you back a line like "while allowing expression of other ideas such as homsexuality on public property"..? What are you talking about? What PRO GAY tax payer sponsored monuments have you ever seen? I feel dirty even debating the notion homosexuality and religion are in the same boat. Religion - ideology. Homo - biology.

The Supreme Court ruled in around 1970 or thereabouts that Secular Humanism IS a religion in and of itself, complete with its own core beliefs and practices. So your really just choosing one religion over another when you claim to be a 'Secular Humanist", and not at all being impartial or neutral. So says the Supreme Court.

What? Is this along the lines of GB senior's comments of asking how I can even be a citizen? I don't understand you here.
Talk about quotemining. Here is the next paragraph of the DoI:

Our institutions derive their powers and authority from 'the consent of the governed' (ie, the people) and not from God.

Well, nobody can spew it like you can...if you support abortion that does not make you 'pro-life', at least in the abortion argument cause you support the state-sanctioned ability of a woman to kill the unborn. Pretty simple for most folks. But keep dicing everything up to suite yourself, its pretty entertaining :)

I never claimed to be impartial or neutral, but the question remains: how do you finagle your 'God' references to include me? It's impossible. Religion is not meant to be all-inclusive, it's meant to be divisive.

1. Secular Humanism is not inclusive when its policies conflict with Judeo-Christian or other religious policies.

2. Your problem with classifying Secular Humanism as a religion is with the Supreme Court, not with me! They the ones that did it!

I support the rights of hunters, but i refuse to hunt.
I support the rights to worship, but i refuse to join a church.
I support freedom of choice, but i would not choose to have a abortion.

Catching on yet Bubba?

There's a trick question...

I am completely confused. As for (1), I never called secular humanism all-inclusive (in fact, I called all religion the opposite). As for (2), I never said I had a problem classifying SH as a religion. Am I completely missing your point? If so, what is it?

The laws, ethics, values and very concepts of fairness in this country were and are founded on Judeo-Christian principles in philosophy if not the outright religion itself...

Not on atheism, Islam, Buddism, ect...,so in that very real respect Judeo-Christian (one coming from the other) philosophy deserves its rightful place at the head of all others in terms of being honored for being our countries foundation. This is not to be intolerant of others, they just do not hold the same place in our country's history and as such do not need to be included with every religious reference ever stated in a public place. Most Americans understand and agree with this, at least according to the polls.

So in terms of the hunted, does that make you pro-life or pro-choice? Or, according to Blackadar, you can be both?

Well, if your acknowledging Secular Humanism as a religion and not some impartial/neutral position as many attempt to do then I stand corrected.

What you choose to do in your own life and what you believe others should have the right to do can differ. I don't personally have any interest in hunting, but I don't feel opposed enough to it as a practice to say that no one else should be allowed to hunt.

The founding fathers were more deists than christians. Only 2 of the 10 commandments (the biggest laws in judeo-christianity) are illegal in the US (murder and perjury). Most of our laws come from English common law. It's completely incorrect to say that our country was founded on judeo-christian principles. Influenced, of course, but not founded on. It was founded on universal principles. You don't have to be judeo-christian to want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's a liberal myth about them being mostly deists, most evidence points to them being Christian worshipping Jesus Christ Our Lord for the most part. The deist thing is revisionist history began pretty much in the 60s in public education to push secular humanist agendas.

I'm probably more of an apathetic agnostic than a true secular humanist, but either way my religion as it is doesn't involve any prayer, so to say that you can change a prayer's wording to include me (like an earlier poster said, not you) is kind of illogical.

Doesn't really answer the question, can a person claim to not like a practice but support it legally and hence consider themselves to be both pro-life and pro-choice? BTW, thought mostly politicians did that Blackadar opens the door for all of us to have it both ways in everthing now!

I was against the war in Iraq, but support the President's authority to do it so in that respect I am both Pro-War and Anti-War at the same time! That how it works, Blackadar ;)

Where is this 'evidence' that you speak of, and who specifically are you saying were Christ worshippers? The Constitution is based more on the writings of Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire than on Matthew, Paul, and Peter, so I assume you are looking at the people rather than the product.

I think you have to be both. You always have to respect someone elses ideology, especially when it comes to their own body and it hurts no one else.

What gives you the right to say you know whats best for a woman? Or for anyone for that matter? Just because I believe you shouldnt kill a defenseless animal for sport, doesnt mean that its wrong if you kill a animal for sport. It just means I dont like it, I shouldnt be able to restrict your ability to kill a deer just because I personally wouldnt kill one.

Is the concept of allowing people the freedom to do things that you wouldn't do for yourself REALLY that foreign to you, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

I don't think he's a sophisticated enough thinker to play devil's advocate - I think he's simply incapable of understanding the concept of being willing to let others have the choice of doing something you yourself don't support.

Considering he can't spell well enough to get my name right, I'd say most things are foreign to him.

The question is how do you vote on it? Which side do you support? Anybody can see the merits on different sides, but then they usually come down on one side or another and consider themselves the one or the other. Pretty basic stuff, or used to be...some like yourself apparently open to trying new ways...right...calling yourself both names is sophisticated how?

Just because you come down on one side doesn't mean you have to eliminate the other side. It doesn't have to be "us vs. them". It can (and should) be "us AND them".

You da man! And you have very pretty handwriting as well! :D

Nice of you to go back and edit your posts to correct it. Thanks!

Actually, my RL handwriting sucks...

Still confused...are you Pro-life, Pro-choice, or some new designation you've come up with?

Under the definition I provided above, it should be very easy to figure out that I'm a pro-life, pro-choice advocate. Reading comprehension is your friend...

its crystal clear what you do... You dont vote in a way that violates another humans rights.

Anyone who votes to ban abortion across the board is a facist and has no place in American government. They are simply trying to enforce their beliefs on others.

:eek: You did it again (oops!)

Yes, those damn unborn are all little facists in the making!

Ok, someone else needs to interpret for me because we're having a communication problem...

Like I can be a Pro-war, Anti-War advocate? Or on any issue, I can be Pro-___ and Anti-___?

please someone interpret this for me too.


Its been painfully obvious for far too long Bubba just refuses to broaden his mind past what hes been "taught". Anyone who thinks differently than him is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. NO NO NO, LAALALLA I DONT HEAR YOU. I gues the fear of hell will do that to people... eventually.

Every single logical response given to you is returned by nonsensical one liners, or a paragraph of conjecture labled as "facts".

Actually, in your war example above it would be more apt to say you were anti-war, pro-administration.

If you can't understand an anti-abortion (as a personal choice), pro-choice (legal rights of everyone) stance......then perhaps you simply lack the intelligence for comprehension.

Bubba is making stuff up again. Please provide a citation for your belief that the Supreme Court held that secular humanism is a religion. A simple proof that it is not recognized as such is to look at the free exercise clause. If I say an illegal action of mine is part of a secular humanist belief, I will not be able to use the free exercise clause to defend my practice.

You state that those who believe in protecting the life of the unborn are 'facists' that basically 'violate the civil rights' of those who would choose to have an abortion. Is this not correct? You just left out one component of your analysis, the unborn themselves? What civil rights do they have? But this has all been hashed out before on many different levels.

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/de...m_religion.htm

That website doesn't load for me. What is the case cite for the Supreme Court?

Fixed it.

Bingo, were making some headway I think.

This is where your logic takes a jump. Before you come to this, you MUST keep in mind the ideology of the person who would have the abortion. You MUST respect that they believe its just a fertilized egg, and its the right of the carrier to do with it what they will. You have every right to despise abortion, but you have no right in trying to supplant your thoughts into law.

Your statement of "what about the rights of the unborn" come from your position that there really is a "unborn human" inside this person, a pro-life stance. Not a human rights stance.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...y_18_1.01.html

I've seen Bubba push a couple of these...

Problem is, you cannot make that argument in regards to partial-birth abortion since this involves basically a partial live-birth of a survivable infant in the last tri-mester who then has his/hers brains sucked out after the head is punctured with a pair of scissors (or whatever.) Yet this practice is vehemently defended by abortionists for fear that outlawing it would 'violate the civil rights' of the mother. So how do you reconcile this with your argument?

Bubba, you obviously have no idea how the Supreme Court works and what a holding is. In footnote 11 of Tarcaso v. Watkins, Justice Black, in a laundry list of non-theistic religions mentions "secular humanism." This is not a "holding" of the court and serves no precedental value. It is what is known as dictum. Your website tries to argue it is much more, but it is out to lunch on how law works.

The examples used to show secular humanism as a free exercise issue are laughable. One is by a DC court that dealt with a tax issue that is horribly misdescribed by your hack author (and is clearly an outlier). The conscientious objector cases are similarly misunderstood as religion cases.

The funny thing is that I've argued on this board (and Revrew may remember this) that instrumental rationality (which is different than secular humanism, but is even less "religous") is a faith-based religion. However, for purposes of the constitution, it is ridiculous to argue that secular humanists receive any constitional protection because of their religion. Quit arguing utter nonsense about law that you don't understand simply because you read it on an AOL member website.

Again, please join us in reality. PBA is an extremely rare procedure that is used almost exclusively in cases where the mother's life is threatened. The bill congress passed did NOT include any allowance for the health of the mother. Courts have struck down the bill because of the failure to have a mother's health exception, not because they believe PBA is a necessary or humane procedure. And the argument that the babies are viable when PBA is performed are not case-specific fact based.

I dont, partial birth abortion is illegal. The only single reason why it was every opposed in the first place is because it makes no provision for the mothers health. If a woman is at risk in a pregnancy, and the only chance to save her life is to have a last trimester abortion, she is not allowed that option anymore. She dies, the baby lives. no choice. That is the ONLY circumstance I would ever, ever even remotely consider being ok with a late trimester abortion.

Of course, there's no such proceedure as PBA. It's called dilation and extraction. Educate yourself on when a dilation and extraction procedure might be performed:

1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.

2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including: She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy:

a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, or
a D&X procedure

A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated.

However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.

This website argues that 'evolution' is a core belief of secular humanism. It is no more a core belief of SH than the Earth revolving around the sun is a core belief of SH. Evolution is science, not faith-based. It's whole establishment clause discussion emanates from this, which pretty much invalidates the entire argument.

Well, this is interesting. First you tear me up because I'm not a lawyer so I don't know as much about the legal holdings of the court than you do, then you turn around and use complete, undocumented opinion to justify your position on abortion. My understanding is that the procedure is used fairly often (one clinic and doctor actually specializes in it, was in the news recently about something or other) and the 'health of the mother' is pretty pliable to having the abortion done in the first place by the doctor doing it.

You may have more training in the law than I do, but your two examples here just show you as another run-of-the-mill partisan picking and choosing arguments to bolster your own pre-conceived beliefs (as many would say about me.) Sorry, nothing special in your analysis at all, or noteworthy. In fact, in the second case its just a regurgitation of liberal talking points without facts to back them up, the very thing I get criticized for all the time.

Oh that's right! The clinic in question was in the news because Indiana legislatures or something wanted to see in how many cases the 'health of the mother' was actually the issue...wanted nameless examples to use as 'data' in crafting legislation on abortion...but surprise surprise surprise the clinic refused to release the date even though patients names would not be attached to the case files. What were they hiding?

I posted a large amount of factual information above on this same issue. Either you chose to ignore it or you can't understand it. So either you're ignorant or just plain stupid. Or perhaps both...

Here ya go Bubba, from the CDC for 2000, 1% of all abortions in the US were in the last trimester.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...s/s212a1t6.gif

fairly often eh?

Why all the unknowns? Some medical clinics and doctors don't know when the last trimester begins?

Sticks and stones, the typical liberal responses, again no surprises here. Some of your 'data' is just semantics, calling it something else other than partial-birth abortion.

And even a smaller percentage would be PBA's. But don't let the facts get in the way, Bubba.

I'm sorry, you were answering why so many are classified as 'unknown" for semester of the abortion? What is the source of your 'facts'?

No, I'm using the proper medical term. And what about the rest of the data? Conveniently ignoring it just like everything else that doesn't fit your view of the world? I guess it must look awful small with those blinders on...

A small percentage is unknown - what is your point? They were probably due to unknown dates of conception that were too close to call on the trimester. The source is the freakin' CDC - are they more liberal propoganda.

I don't know why I bother - you ignore all of Blackie's info; you ignore any data; and just try to divert the conversation to some new, ambiguous point that has little effect on the major point that YOU ARE WRONG.

He can't consider the data. He can't admit he's wrong. It would force him to rethink his entire view of the world. And that scares him. So he'd rather just make inane statement after inane statement to try to justify his position to himself.

The "unknown" is what the CDC could not determine, insufficient data I suspect. I doubt every single abortion in this country is reported to the CDC with every detail attached. Go ahead and count the unknowns as PBA for all i care, its still a minuscule number. You seem to think a woman would just choose to have a late term abortion, just for the heck of it. The vast majority of late term abortions were done to save the womans life. But dont worry, women can now die and the baby can live, just like ya want it.

So far weve debunked every angle youve thrown at us, next?

Me neither.

Well, practically speaking, secular humanism is treated as a religion which deserves free exercise protection. It is NOT, however, treated as a religion for establishment clause review. In Tarcaso you had an atheist who refused to swear an oath. The Court ruled he had a free exercise right not to be forced to swear an oath to a religion he did not believe in. It was based more on free exercise than establishment.

This also comes in under Frazee v. Illinois Dept of Employment, where a guy who says he considers Sunday to be his day of rest, but is not a believer in an organized religion, is given free exercise protection.

After all, free exercise rights is only given to religious beliefs and atheists, secular humanists, etc, have had their free exercise rights protected.


Oh, and I learned this in a law school class, btw, not an AOL Member site ;).

Pretty much exactly what I was trying to say before coffee kicked in this morning. We live in a world where teachers are afraid to say Merry Christmas, which is weird considering that Christmas really doesn't have any religious significance anymore.

Me neither.

Though it could be argued that Christmas never really ever was a religious holiday until very recently. (Below is a thread on the artificiality of Kwanzaa that eventually morphed into a discussion on the artificiality of Christmas).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=33504

Well theologically speaking it is (today) an incredibly important holiday for Christians. And it is the biggest day on our (secular/national) social calendar. So, either way, it's a little odd that our public schools are afraid to acknowledge it.

By the way, I worked for the CDC in 1999-2000 doing stastics while I was a grad student in Atlanta and I can tell you that the reason why these are unknows are pretty well stated above. I did not work directly on the abortion numbers (I did mostly parasitology data) but I know the drill.

1. Not all conception dates are available.
2. Thes data are not always kept.
3. Records get lost, destroyed, whatever.
4. Submission of these data is not a law.
5. Many clinics are not easily accessible as they are scared of people like you strapping bombs to themselves in an effort to cleanse society.

You can go on believing that the secular, liberal CDC is hiding late-term abortion data in the "unknown category" because they want to hide that extra 1% or whatever, but it's just a statistical innaccuracy to include these in any other category and they don't want to lead people to believe they are hiding data.

Even though Christmas has been co-opted so heavily by our consumer-driven culture into becoming a very secular holiday, it's still associated with Christianity. For those that are not Christian, a specific focus on on Christmas at that time of year is an unneccessary marginalization of their belief system. I don't think any public school teacher should be afraid to use the word Christmas or to talk about it, but they should also be conscious of acknowledging other religious holidays at that time of year and giving some time to them as well, and I don't see why it should be so bad to have them wish students "Happy Holidays" so that no students are marginalized.

More gist for the mill, based on liberal myths and lies no less. People like me strapping bombs to myself to 'cleanse' society? Straight out of hollywood. Fact is, 5 abortion bombs in the last 10 years, none (that's zero) within the last 5 years. I believe the guy they just caught for the Atlanta/abortion clinic bombings was responsible for more than one of these so...your pool of crazies with bombs strapped on is pretty thin. Much more dangerous and likely to get killed by you driving home from your happy hour some night.

As far as the 'unknowns', your right...its not required by law. Why not? Well, because when some such as the Indiana legislature want to get the late-term abortion info to check on the liberal manta of 'only if the life of the mother is in danger' then the clinics just refuse to cooperate and issue the data. Very strange, you'd think that they would want this data out there to support their claims in the first place. As long as they don't keep records/data and share them with govt and public they deserve to be under suspicion. Talking specifically of life-of-the-mother issues concerning late-term abortions.

It is a government holiday - does anybody seriously think it should not be?

Yes, the ACLU. But then they are defending NAMBLA in a civil trial in Massachussets also.

Well, here's a surprise. George Soros gives alot of money to the ACLU. Talk about coming full circle.http://www.polianna.com/2004/12/17.OREILLY.ACLU.shtm

I never said the crazies succeed, I just said the fear of it is quite prominent. Getting these data is quite an amazing task. And IIRC, didn't the Indiana people want patient info as well? I seem to remember, I think maybe it was the midwest, they were trying to force clinics to turn over all that info, including patient identities so they could "compile numbers" or something.

Besides, so let's just say only 1% of late-term abortions is related to the health of the mother...why wouldn't you put in a provision just in case since despite how ignorant anyone must be, it's definitely a possibility. And why should clinics/hospitals be under suspiscion...laws were created to allow them to keep certain information/data from the government. You know, the government conservatives always say during elections should stay out of citizens' personal lives.

And I don't drive home from happy hour, no point in driving anywhere in Boston...I don't even know why I still have my car :mad:

from the creators of Bubba's site

We have worked hard to create this website, and we're still working on it. If you feel you have been helped by our work, remember that "the laborer is worthy of his hire" (Luke 10:7).

a little biased?

How did this thread turn into a debate on abortion? Personally, I think this thread should have turned into a discussion about Bubba's absolutely absurd and offensive comment on the first page:
"I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see that Mr. Soros actually has quite a fan-club amongst the anti-faith-based crowd.”

he ignored my questions about the right and Clearchannel...I see he ignores a lot actually.

Btw, the Pastor that kicked out the Dems resigned today, if anyone cares ;).

Way to not read what he really wrote. He wrote the facists are those who push their beliefs on others.

Reading this, I'm wondering how amusing it would be if Bubba's kid ends up being a gay liberal - wonder how that would work out.

He ignored my questions about the vast left wing conspiracy that conspired in the sixties to hide Thomas Jefferson's love of Christ :rolleyes:

I see Bubba has attempted to shift the discussion again because he hopelessly lost every part so far. And I agree, I won't bother anymore. I told myself to stay out of politics threads, but I'm dumb and can't even listen to myself.

I was responding to:


Seems like we're all in agreement that according to the Bill of Rights, you can't march down the street in a parade celebrating Jesus because the street is public property...

The problem with this thread (and, in general, the internet) is I can't tell who's being sarcastic or not. Does anybody really think the Bill of Rights forbids this? :eek:

I'm half sarcastic and half serious. Let me rephrase my point a bit:

The argument was being made that the Christian Right in this country feels under attack, because there are many places / times we are not allowed to be Christian, because being Christian makes other people feel uncomfortable. Flasch brought up the eminently reasonable point of being uncomfortable when forced prayer was used in school.

Then the whole bit about Christian's not being allowed to march in a parade shouting Jesus came up. Since any Christian display on public land is considered a violation of Church and State (nativity scenes and Ten Commandments in a Courthouse were two examples cited by myself), I'm simply making the point that it's not unreasonable for Christians to be worried about doing ANY Christian activity on ANY public land without fear of the community being sued over it.

Ok. This I'm curious about. How can secular humanism be protected under the free exercise clause when it has no predictable set of beliefs. If I argue the meals in prison are inconsistent with a secular humanist diet, how would anyone be able to argue either way. If I argue that the use of marijuana is part of secular humanist rituals, is there a free exercise issue? If I say secular humanism is about gay rights (as Bubba seems to believe), does that mean anti-gay laws are a free exercise violation? I think the answers to all of the above questions is that there is no free exercise claim. What I've seen from Bubba's list of cases on the AOL website is that conscientious objectors don't have to be of a particular religion (and so they are assumed to be secular humanists), but I don't see that as the same as recognizing secular humanism as a religion across the board. Your case seems to be another anomoly where the court doesn't want to judge sincerity of belief. I just can't believe they would really extend this principle.

And if Bubba really wants to argue that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the law, beware of the thousands of free exercise lawsuits coming that will ensure gay marriage is protected, public sex acts are allowed, and affirmative action is always legal (just as it is within churches).

You may be half-sarcastic and half-serious, but it's an absurd example. The Bill of Rights specifially allows the speech your speaking of. The only reason that Christians wouldn't be allowed to march in a parade is if NO groups are allowed to march in a parade. What's illegal is if Christian groups are allowed to but the KKK isn't.

As for "not allowed to be Christian", I'd like an example.

The trend is also strongly against limiting Christian displays on public lands. Several circuits have ruled and allowed the ten commandments to be in parks and even by the state capitol. St. Cronin is wrong on the law on this one.

I think your are vastly underestimating the reasons why church and state must be kept seperate. It is not simply to make sure we do not hurt each other's feelings. Separation of church and state is the only thing that can guarantee religious and philosophical freedom. Christians are as free as anyone else in this country to use their personal means to promote their religion. The idea that they, the majority religion in this country, are being repressed by not being able to display a nativity scene in public is laughable. I sometimes wonder what a religious right member would think of separation of church and state if he/she was living in the Taliban's Afghanistan. Is putting the ten commandments up in a courthouse as bad as throwing acid in the face of girls who don't cover their faces? Of course not, but the line must be drawn somewhere, and there is zero harm done in drawing it at zero tolerance.

Where did this non-sequiter come from?

I have no problem with Christmas being a government holiday.