My Two Dads? Not here in Florida.

[draper]

Ahhhhhh, yes...

Tammy, in all our conversations about Buddhism you never once mentioned that Budda was person...

lol, the religion makes much more sense to me now.

 

[jsn112]

i'm sorry to nitpick but this DRIVES ME NUTS. buddha was a human, just like you and i. and this man is not a religion...however his philosophy and teaching are. he's not a deity. actually you ought to read a bit about buddhism, its a beautiful religion (you might even pick up a few pointers on how to live day to day!)

I know all about Budhism. My grandmother was a budhist. If she wasn't a woman, she would be a monk. 80% of my family and relatives are budhist. I know more about budhist history and how it became a religion than I care for. So yeah, you can say I know a little about it.

If you don't think Budhism is a religion, then you are fooling yourself. It's a religion just like Toaism, Shintoism, etc. Budha (Siddhartha) means the enlightened one. If you believe in Jesus, you don't dable into Budhism because it teaches reincarnation, Budhisatvas, nervana, etc.

 

[Polycarp1]

Maybe I should re-phrase or maybe not. But I think he got the point to what I was trying to say. If you decide to jump off the cliff, God is not going to take away the consequences from your decision to jump off the cliff. And hence, when you hit the ground, you either die, broke your bones, or internal bleeding, etc. It's a matter cause and consequences.

With your principle in general, I agree -- people need to take the responsibility to live with the consequences of their actions. However, what I was objecting to was the idea that someone's choice to live in a manner that someone else considers sinful gives the someone else the right to restrict the first person's rights or privileges, which seemed to be what you were implying in the post that started this exchange.

And getting back to the original topic -- it occurs to me that what is best for the children needing homes is the primary goal, and that's something that we all agree on, I think. In an ideal world, there would be a plethora of childless or with-love-to-give-for-additional-kids Robert Youngs and June Lockharts out there to provide homes for all the kids that need them. But we don't live in that ideal world, and a lot of these kids are going through foster care. And while there are some excellent foster parents out there, there are also people who somehow got certified as foster parents whom I wouldn't entrust a white rat in a cage to, much less a child. If single parents and gay couples with love in their hearts for a child and a willingness to father and mother that kid are willing to adopt (and have other criteria, such as enough dependable income to ensure the child is physically provided for), I had much rather see the kid go into a loving home that may not meet someone's ideals than be left in the festering sore that constitutes America's parentless-child programs.

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

I know all about Budhism. My grandmother was a budhist. If she wasn't a woman, she would be a monk. 80% of my family and relatives are budhist. I know more about budhist history and how it became a religion than I care for. So yeah, you can say I know a little about it.

If you don't think Budhism is a religion, then you are fooling yourself. It's a religion just like Toaism, Shintoism, etc. Budha (Siddhartha) means the enlightened one. If you believe in Jesus, you don't dable into Budhism because it teaches reincarnation, Budhisatvas, nervana, etc.

BUDDHA was a man.

BUDDHISM is a religion.

there is a difference. and for someone who has 80% of their family as buddhists, you figured they would have told you how to spell "buddha" by now. and nirvana . and bodhisattvas.

 

[Polycarp1]

Karl Marx came up with socialism. The next stage would communism. Then if you will, utopia. Lenin, Stalin, Castro, etc. have put it to their use. Do you know the doctrine of communism?

Picky detail, but socialism is merely the idea of state ownership of the means of production, generally coupled with a program for state responsibility for the needs of the individual (welfarism, which can be either capitalist or socialist) and with consequent high tax levels to support this. There were millions of active socialists before Marx ever began his economic theorizing. And while I am emphatically against socialism in general (specific elements -- the "natural monopolies" -- I can accept) and strongly against communism and its statist control of the individual, I do have to object to both your attribution of socialism and of the Russian/Chinese/Cuban dictatorships to Marx. Marx was an economic/social theorist with bizarre ideas. Lenin and Stalin took the idea and turned it into a vehicle to come to power and control their country -- Mao modified the idea for an impoverished, overpopulated largely agrarian country (at the time he was conducting the Chinese Civil War, that is). Castro was merely a consummate con artist playing Russia against America -- many leading anti-Communist Americans during the 50s believed him to be a Cuban patriot trying to overthrow the corrupt Batista dictatorship, which is what he portrayed himself as -- I remember those days, and the attitudes people had about him.

Many devout Christians of the past, including the Jerusalem Church of the early chapters of Acts, believed socialism to be an effective way to run society or at least a small part of it. There are good reasons why it doesn't work as advertised, but it should not be given the moral onus of communism.

 

[jsn112]

BUDDHA was a man.

BUDDHISM is a religion.

there is a difference. and for someone who has 80% of their family as buddhists, you figured they would have told you how to spell "buddha" by now. and nirvana . and bodhisattvas.

Hey, in my language it's not called "Buddha." It's called something else but also means buddha.

If you want to nitpick, Buddha was not his real name. That name came later. When I said "Buddha," I was being general. Like I have said, I could care less about the religion. Ask me about Christianity and the Bible, and I will point you scriptures, prophecies, and history.

 

[Polycarp1]

Technically, "Buddha" is a title that means "Enlightened One" -- like "Christ" for Jesus, it's not a part of his name, but an epithet he's known by. The Mahayana branch of Buddhism considers Gautama the latest in a long string of Buddhas, and has evolved a transference-of-merit doctrine remarkably like that of Catholicism (that's the point behind Bodhisattvas, who are supposedly guys-who-could-be-Buddhas-but-make-the-sacrifice-of-staying-behind-to-save-others). Thedavera Buddhism expects you to gain enlightenment by your own efforts, following the example of the Buddha.

There are some strong parallels behind some of Buddhist doctrine and orthodox Christian belief, notably the idea that "we're only pilgrims here; our true home is Elsewhere" and that renunciation of desire for things of this world is meritorious. But there are some major differences as well -- and Buddhism's blithe denial of any importance to God is an absolute barrier between the two belief systems.

 

[Matt Never Existed]

I'm sorry, Maybe this is off topic, but so is everything else right here, so meh.

Whats bothering me is that people say that Christians 'can't be of the world because the world will hate the truth'. Now, if we all look at the world right now, atleast MY world, here in america, i think that Christians have it fricken easy. Show me where, in america, does the world hate christians? Show me where, in america, they are being persecuted and discriminated (spelling?) against?

No, I don't think anyone can because American Christians are so laid-back and lazy that it makes christians outside of the US sick. Granted, there are a handful of people here who I can honestly say are walking with the lord. But lets get things straight here. No one is living 'outside' the world here. You just say 'we're set apart. turn to God and be forgiven' and then you go and love on teh world. Christians here comprimise in some areas in their life and turn a blind eye to it, because if they say "I fail here', that would make them like everyone else. Which is a problem for most people, because they seem to think as Christianity as an 'elite club' of some kind, like being a christian makes them better than everyone else. WHen in reality, it doesn't. It SHOULD show the world that you struggle with (insert sin here). You should WEAR it on your sleave, showing the world that you sin. Because then, people will say "How can they just talk about being addicted to inappropriate content like that?" or whatever your sin is. Then you can say "It doesn't matter. I'm forgiven by God and I'm getting better. Soon, I won't even have a problem with it". THATS a christian. And when teh world says "You're crazy'", you should just smile, nod, and say "Yep, thats me."

 

[jsn112]

I'm sorry, Maybe this is off topic, but so is everything else right here, so meh.

Whats bothering me is that people say that Christians 'can't be of the world because the world will hate the truth'. Now, if we all look at the world right now, atleast MY world, here in america, i think that Christians have it fricken easy. Show me where, in america, does the world hate christians? Show me where, in america, they are being persecuted and discriminated (spelling?) against?

No, I don't think anyone can because American Christians are so laid-back and lazy that it makes christians outside of the US sick. Granted, there are a handful of people here who I can honestly say are walking with the lord. But lets get things straight here. No one is living 'outside' the world here. You just say 'we're set apart. turn to God and be forgiven' and then you go and love on teh world. Christians here comprimise in some areas in their life and turn a blind eye to it, because if they say "I fail here', that would make them like everyone else. Which is a problem for most people, because they seem to think as Christianity as an 'elite club' of some kind, like being a christian makes them better than everyone else. WHen in reality, it doesn't. It SHOULD show the world that you struggle with (insert sin here). You should WEAR it on your sleave, showing the world that you sin. Because then, people will say "How can they just talk about being addicted to inappropriate content like that?" or whatever your sin is. Then you can say "It doesn't matter. I'm forgiven by God and I'm getting better. Soon, I won't even have a problem with it". THATS a christian. And when teh world says "You're crazy'", you should just smile, nod, and say "Yep, thats me."

You are right that Christians have it easy here in America compare to Christians in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. But that doesn't mean America is the exception to the rule. When mention of persecution, it could mean denying and/or perverting the Truth (scriptures) and not just killing the body. Look at the ACLU. They attack Christianity like no other here in America. And activist judges and politicians.

When mention "of the world," it includes outside of America as well. One of the great things about America is that there are still some trying to fight to keep the faith alive. In Europe, churches are becoming museum pieces. And they don't hold Jesus in very high esteem at all. However, at this rate, America could become another Europe. What will we say then? God will probably remove the hedge around this country. Prosperity is not an accident. Some say that we are the next Babylon. And in the book of Revelation, it describes how great the fall of Babylon.

 

[Jacey]

The ACLU does not attack christianity, that is a bald-faced lie.

Whoever said Europe had to respect Jesus?

 

[Polycarp1]

JSN, I am so sick of ACLU-bashing that it's getting annoying.

Quite simply, the ACLU stands for the protection of the civil liberties of American citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution, and in particular those specified in the First Amendment.

The only cases in which they are "anti-Christian" is when a Christian individual or group in a position of legal power somewhere decides to take it upon themselves to legislate something that meets the precedent-based definition of "an establishment of religion" or something that impairs "the free exercise of religion."

Just because the majority of citizens in a town are Christians who believe in the importance of the Ten Commandments does not make it legal to buy and erect a plaque bearing them in the public square, because it's spending the tax dollars raised from and utilizing the land owned in common by all the citizens of that town, including a minority who do not believe in the Ten Commandments. Just because the school board are all Christians does not mean that they can compel or coerce recital of oaths or prayers they believe to be true by all schoolchildren, who have the same freedom of religion relative to any government body, including the school board, as everyone else. (What their parents and churches may expect of them as regards practicing religion is not governed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments -- what the government can expect of them is.)

There have been occasions when the "separation of church and state" doctrine is misunderstood by civil servants to mean that no voluntary exercise of religion is permissible in the public schools, or by government employees. And in such occasions the ACLU has stood by the Christians who were being denied the free exercise of their religion by some regulation. There is a Supreme Court case in which a secularist school board on Long Island refused to rent a school auditorium to a local church on the same terms and conditions that it rented it to groups like Little Theater and the local American Legion, believing that the Establishment Clause prohibited them from allowing the church to use it. This was argued on "free exercise" grounds with the ACLU backing the church, and they won the case.

The ACLU is not against Christianity. It's against Christians forcing others to practice our beliefs, or coercing them to do so. And it would equally be against a majority of non-Christians doing likewise, if one should exist. (There is one case, left in the lower courts, regarding a village founded by Hasidim Jews in the Catskills, where Torah-based local regulations were found to be violative of First Amendment rights.)

 

[mpshiel]

Could American please stop saying that Europeans aren't Christian. I am pretty sure that Italy for example, being prodominately Roman Catholic would find that offensive. I am sure Northern Ireland would be relieved to know that thier divide isn't between Protestants and Catholics but between Athiests and Agnostics. Or that England where the only thing outnumbering churches might be pubs (but I doubt it) isn't a prodominately Christian country.

Even implying that Europe is becoming Godless is offensive and ignorant.

 

[Polycarp1]

I'm sorry, Maybe this is off topic, but so is everything else right here, so meh.

Whats bothering me is that people say that Christians 'can't be of the world because the world will hate the truth'. Now, if we all look at the world right now, atleast MY world, here in america, i think that Christians have it fricken easy. Show me where, in america, does the world hate christians? Show me where, in america, they are being persecuted and discriminated (spelling?) against?

No, I don't think anyone can because American Christians are so laid-back and lazy that it makes christians outside of the US sick. Granted, there are a handful of people here who I can honestly say are walking with the lord. But lets get things straight here. No one is living 'outside' the world here. You just say 'we're set apart. turn to God and be forgiven' and then you go and love on teh world. Christians here comprimise in some areas in their life and turn a blind eye to it, because if they say "I fail here', that would make them like everyone else. Which is a problem for most people, because they seem to think as Christianity as an 'elite club' of some kind, like being a christian makes them better than everyone else. WHen in reality, it doesn't. It SHOULD show the world that you struggle with (insert sin here). You should WEAR it on your sleave, showing the world that you sin. Because then, people will say "How can they just talk about being addicted to inappropriate content like that?" or whatever your sin is. Then you can say "It doesn't matter. I'm forgiven by God and I'm getting better. Soon, I won't even have a problem with it". THATS a christian. And when teh world says "You're crazy'", you should just smile, nod, and say "Yep, thats me."

For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart."
20: Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21: For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
22: For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
23: but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
24: but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25: For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (I Corinthians 1:19-25)

 

[Inspired]

What do you have to say about this subject?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/004/11.23.html


Thanks, Robert.

More people trying to force their religious beliefs on others, yet those same people fail to jump in line when the question of who will take care of those children comes up.

 

[jsn112]

The ACLU does not attack christianity, that is a bald-faced lie.

Read this is what I wrote and I stand by it.

<<<However, at this rate, America could become another Europe. What will we say then? God will probably remove the hedge around this country>>>

Whoever said Europe had to respect Jesus?

Of course not. Secularism doesn't respect Jesus or any other religion for that matter. That's why Islam is gaining strength to fill that void.

 

[jsn112]

JSN, I am so sick of ACLU-bashing that it's getting annoying.

Quite simply, the ACLU stands for the protection of the civil liberties of American citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution, and in particular those specified in the First Amendment.

The only cases in which they are "anti-Christian" is when a Christian individual or group in a position of legal power somewhere decides to take it upon themselves to legislate something that meets the precedent-based definition of "an establishment of religion" or something that impairs "the free exercise of religion."

Just because the majority of citizens in a town are Christians who believe in the importance of the Ten Commandments does not make it legal to buy and erect a plaque bearing them in the public square, because it's spending the tax dollars raised from and utilizing the land owned in common by all the citizens of that town, including a minority who do not believe in the Ten Commandments. Just because the school board are all Christians does not mean that they can compel or coerce recital of oaths or prayers they believe to be true by all schoolchildren, who have the same freedom of religion relative to any government body, including the school board, as everyone else. (What their parents and churches may expect of them as regards practicing religion is not governed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments -- what the government can expect of them is.)

There have been occasions when the "separation of church and state" doctrine is misunderstood by civil servants to mean that no voluntary exercise of religion is permissible in the public schools, or by government employees. And in such occasions the ACLU has stood by the Christians who were being denied the free exercise of their religion by some regulation. There is a Supreme Court case in which a secularist school board on Long Island refused to rent a school auditorium to a local church on the same terms and conditions that it rented it to groups like Little Theater and the local American Legion, believing that the Establishment Clause prohibited them from allowing the church to use it. This was argued on "free exercise" grounds with the ACLU backing the church, and they won the case.

The ACLU is not against Christianity. It's against Christians forcing others to practice our beliefs, or coercing them to do so. And it would equally be against a majority of non-Christians doing likewise, if one should exist. (There is one case, left in the lower courts, regarding a village founded by Hasidim Jews in the Catskills, where Torah-based local regulations were found to be violative of First Amendment rights.)

You have your view and I have mine. If you continue to defend the actions of ACLU when they sued to have the memorial plaques made by the victims' families in Columbine to be removed from the school because the kids drew a cross on it, or have Judge Roy Moore removed, etc. then it's your prerogative. You and many others have decided long ago to fly your own flags before Jesus flag. That's also your prerogative. I will fly my Jesus flag before the Rainbow flag or the flag of the United States. That's my prerogative. But at least I am true to myself. And least of all, consistent with the Word.

And here's news for you. No where in the constitution it says SEPERATION of church and state. That's the court's misinterpretation. It say Congress shall not make law establishing religion. Which is totally different than SEPARATION. Putting a 10 commandments on the wall of court is NOT making a law. Passing a Bill is making a law. Supreme Court Judges say a prayer to God every morning for crying out loud.

 

[jsn112]

Even implying that Europe is becoming Godless is offensive and ignorant.

Europe hasn't achieved Godless state yet. Also, please don't say that churches and Christianity will never exist in Europe again because I didn't say that. Jesus said to Peter that on this rock He will establish His church and Hades will not overcome it. That's true around the world. But compare to the US, they need a lot of work.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : jsn112

Not at all. No condition. You professed yourself as gay but I still love you. Really. But that doesn't mean that I like what you do. I have said many times that I love the killer, Jeffrey Dalmer. But that doesn't mean I like his killings.

You pretend love but compare me to a mass murderer. I stand by my original perception that your “love” is less than sincere.

I asked this before, but, who is Thor? Or what is Thor? Is he your mate?

Try looking the word up.

Thor is the Germanic and Scandinavian God of the sky, storms, thunder and by extension to his marriage to the Goddess of agriculture the God of fertility. Thursday is named after him.

Jesus love you as a person. What proof do you want from Him? He die for you and me while we were STILL sinners, didn't He?

Remind me to send this Jesus a thank you card.



Considering the very concept of sin is foreign to my religion. The concepts of sin as the breaking of authoritarian moral codes and SIN as in the conceptual choosing to live separate from the Divine. Are impossibilities in the Pagan worldview and as such sin is a meaningless concept. Aside from that, I have never understood why your Deity, who ti is often claimed is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent NEEDED to go through the whole incarnation and “die for sins” thing. If your deity truly were omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent then he could have taken care of the whole sin thing without going through the whole physical incarnation bit. A truly omnipotent deity could do so and an omnibenovelant deity would not put his followers through the several thousand years of not having this grace/saving already in place.



Anyway…back to the OP and your posts…

If you read my post before, I said, in some way, I agree with what Polycarp said. But on the "basis" of GOD, I would rather have heterosexual family adopt children than homosexual families. The Bible is against homosexual relationships and therefore would not have the appropriate Biblical teaching in that family. If appropriate teaching is applied in the homosexual families, then they would be condemning themselves because they know and understand the Truth. Why can't you understand that logic?

Once again you are confusing the objective person of the deity you choose to worship with your personal perceptions of your religions text. Your basis for advocating this discrimination is your own personal prejudices that you then attempt to justify with your bible.



Apparently you believe that only your personal beliefs are “appropriate teachings” and anyone who does not agree with what you demand they believe is not safe to allow around children.

You are right in that I am not being persecuted the way you are. Jesus will remove your sins but would not remove the consequences. Your persecution is the consequences. Just like a murderer receiving his due consequences at either death or life long sentences.

You are the one doing the persecuting not your deity.



And once again you compare homosexuality to murder. You continue to do this yet expect me to believe you actually “love me” as a person.

Name calling is not going to do you any good with me. Did I ever say muslims are dirt? However, if you are a Christian, you should know Islam is a false religion just like Budha.

And if you are Muslim than you know Christianity is a “false” religion.

And here's news for you. No where in the constitution it says SEPERATION of church and state. That's the court's misinterpretation.

How disheartening that for over two hundred years the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States just didn’t know this.



The phrase “right to a fair trial” also does not appear in the constitution but it is understood to actually be part of the constitution.



You may be interested to know that the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.





The first justices of the Supreme court were all men who had participated in the writing of the constitution. This first Supreme court made use of Jefferson’s phrase “separation of Church and state” and one would think that these framers of the constitution actually did know what was in the constitution.

It say Congress shall not make law establishing religion. Which is totally different than SEPARATION. Putting a 10 commandments on the wall of court is NOT making a law. Passing a Bill is making a law. Supreme Court Judges say a prayer to God every morning for crying out loud.

Putting those commandments on the wall of the Alabama Supreme Court was an endorsement of one particular religion to the exclusion of all other religions. And if you take the time to read the constitution you will find that this governmental endorsement of one religion at the expense of other religions is exactly what the separation of church and state prohibits.

Europe hasn't achieved Godless state yet. Also, please don't say that churches and Christianity will never exist in Europe again because I didn't say that. Jesus said to Peter that on this rock He will establish His church and Hades will not overcome it. That's true around the world. But compare to the US, they need a lot of work.

I am sure that Hades, like Thor, has better things to do.

 

[jsn112]

You pretend love but compare me to a mass murderer. I stand by my original perception that your &#8220;love&#8221; is less than sincere.

You can interpret however you want. I was making a point. I think you are being a little paranoid. I was sincered when I said I love you, although not the same love that you and your partner are sharing.

Try looking the word up.

Thor is the Germanic and Scandinavian God of the sky, storms, thunder and by extension to his marriage to the Goddess of agriculture the God of fertility. Thursday is named after him.

Why didn't you say so. I remembered watching Thor as a little kid. He's the one with the hammer that was flying around, right? I believe that was the Adventure of Spiderman along with Firestorm and Iceman. Boy, that brings back memory.

Considering the very concept of sin is foreign to my religion. The concepts of sin as the breaking of authoritarian moral codes and SIN as in the conceptual choosing to live separate from the Divine. Are impossibilities in the Pagan worldview and as such sin is a meaningless concept. Aside from that, I have never understood why your Deity, who ti is often claimed is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent NEEDED to go through the whole incarnation and &#8220;die for sins&#8221; thing. If your deity truly were omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent then he could have taken care of the whole sin thing without going through the whole physical incarnation bit. A truly omnipotent deity could do so and an omnibenovelant deity would not put his followers through the several thousand years of not having this grace/saving already in place.

Sin is very real my friend. And yes God is all-everything. But He is holy. He is like an accountant if you will. He has to balance out the debit and the credit. He can't do one and ignore the other just like an accountant. That's why Jesus had to do what He did. The other option is to destroy all living things on earth and start all over again. Would you want that instead?

Once again you are confusing the objective person of the deity you choose to worship with your personal perceptions of your religions text. Your basis for advocating this discrimination is your own personal prejudices that you then attempt to justify with your bible.



Apparently you believe that only your personal beliefs are &#8220;appropriate teachings&#8221; and anyone who does not agree with what you demand they believe is not safe to allow around children.

No, I try to live based on the Bible. It's tough. But for eternity's sake, it's worth it.

You are the one doing the persecuting not your deity.[/font][/size]

I am persecuting only if you call upholding the scripture as such. Not everyone will accept the Truth. As you can see, some people have been modifying the scriptures just to conform. However, I refuse to do that.

And once again you compare homosexuality to murder. You continue to do this yet expect me to believe you actually &#8220;love me&#8221; as a person.

Read the above post.

And if you are Muslim than you know Christianity is a &#8220;false&#8221; religion.

You have opened a can of worm here. But I don't have time go into it now. Got to catch American Idol. Ask me this question next time and I will gladly answer you.

How disheartening that for over two hundred years the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States just didn&#8217;t know this.



The phrase &#8220;right to a fair trial&#8221; also does not appear in the constitution but it is understood to actually be part of the constitution.



You may be interested to know that the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.





The first justices of the Supreme court were all men who had participated in the writing of the constitution. This first Supreme court made use of Jefferson&#8217;s phrase &#8220;separation of Church and state&#8221; and one would think that these framers of the constitution actually did know what was in the constitution.

A quick answer: Jefferson was one of three signees (out of 50-55) to the constitution who were atheists (the other were Jackson and Adam, I think). So I don't expect him to say anything else otherwise. If it was meant to be in there, it would have been in there already

Putting those commandments on the wall of the Alabama Supreme Court was an endorsement of one particular religion to the exclusion of all other religions. And if you take the time to read the constitution you will find that this governmental endorsement of one religion at the expense of other religions is exactly what the separation of church and state prohibits.

When Congress decides to make it a law, you let me know.

 

[Matt Never Existed]

When mention of persecution, it could mean denying and/or perverting the Truth (scriptures) and not just killing the body. Look at the ACLU. They attack Christianity like no other here in America. And activist judges and politicians.

Who is 'perverting the Truth'? a group that stands up for the rights of people in this country, no matter if their christian/athiest/agnostic/other? How is helping people perverting the message of "love your brother as yourself"? Just becuase they help ALL people, even the ones that the Fundie's have their forces set againt, doesn't make them bad. It actually, in my eyes, makes them amazingly wonderful and brave.

One of the great things about America is that there are still some trying to fight to keep the faith alive.

Which, among the countless faiths out there, is the one that is almost 'dead'? None. You still have your churches, your bible studies and whatnot. But nope, people aren't happy. They want to force others out of their own personal beliefs and conform to christianity. And if they won't do that the easy way, well that means that the Fundies have to try to change the LAWS to do it for them.

Its gotten to the point, here in America, that if you aren't what the majority defines as normal, you're gonna get screwed in some way or another. And normally, its BY the christians. People can say that Christianity is dying in the Unitied States, but honestly, its not. We, the minorities, just are tired of being under the Fundies thumbs and are working to making this Nation the place of Freedom that was it was normally intended to be. We're tried of people trying to make this a theocracy. (spelling? ~shrug~). One religion has no right to RULE a nation, an example of this would be ANY Muslim nation in the middle east. I refuse to lay back and let the United States become a Nation where my freedom to love and MARRY anyone I want.

In Europe, churches are becoming museum pieces. And they don't hold Jesus in very high esteem at all. However, at this rate, America could become another Europe.

You live in Europe, right? Because, those are some major things to say about a country that has had a history that has almost always had the church in it at some point in time.

What will we say then? God will probably remove the hedge around this country. Prosperity is not an accident. Some say that we are the next Babylon. And in the book of Revelation, it describes how great the fall of Babylon.

Its kinda stuck up to say that the only reason the United States is as great as it is not is because of God. We got this way on the backs of our forefathers. But, I do agree on one thing. We are the next Babylon. Because people feel the need to try to twist scripture to justify their own hatred, God is going to rain his Judgement down and destroy them all. I only hope he spares the lives of those who are truely living according to his son's words, "love God with all your heart" and "love your neighbor as yourself".