California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

[jmdrake]

You have frickin' got to be kidding me? :eek: Why in hell are you for Ron Paul? Or are you? This is the most totalitarian bunch of horseshit that I think I have ever read on this board. :rolleyes: Who in hell do you think you are to dictate to others their faith? From what you have written, you surely do not believe in our Founding Fathers and the Republic that they left us. Freedom of religion was a very important aspect of the founding of our country.

You are sounding very much like a Marxist. Are you?

She's the same one that started a thread claiming that freedom to practice religion as you see fit should be stripped from the constitution.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=124637

Threads like that is what I was referring to in a certain subforum when I asked why should SOME potentially offensive material be regulated to the RPF "free speech zone" while other more offensive and more anti Paul positions get free reign. Oh I know the owners and the moderators have the "private property rights" to do what they want, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. ;)

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

State Atheism is just a nicer way of implementing seperation of church and state. From the link, "State atheism is the official rejection of religion in all forms by a government in favor of atheism." The state is atheist, which is a good thing, otherwise you get disasters like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Or you get wonderful free countries like the United States of America. (Unless you secretly wish the U.S.A. was more like the U.S.S.R. in this regards.)

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

So iyou can hope that the New World Order will cremate all the Christians, just not kill them first? That's pretty sadistic, baking people alive and all....

Stop it with the strawmen.


You're pretty funny. The Christians would send you to mental rehab to "cure" homosexuality, while you'd send the Christians to mental rehab to "cyre" faith.

Yeah just how some people use guns to "kill" people of one ethnicity and others use guns to "maintain" the peace in an unstable country. They're just tools that can be used for good and evil.


The Christians allegedly want to teach their children to hate you, while you want to teach their own children to hate them. Good luck with that.

Ideally, they would try to convert their parents.

[Tdcci]

Or you get wonderful free countries like the United States of America.

If there wasn't an explicit provision in the Constitution preventing the U.S.A adopting an official religion there is no doubt in my mind that an official religion would be established. This country is not free because of religion.

[jmdrake]

The word "gas" does not appear anywhere in that post, and I have rejected that bait in a post I am now linking to (for the second time)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322285&postcount=221

But the word "oven" does appear. :rolleyes:




Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
Socialist policies sent the gays to the ovens in Germany.
No, they didn't. The Government in Nazi Germany did what the churches are doing now, pitting human beings against one another by dividing them into groups ("gays, "jews", "gypsies"). The government could have only done this with the consent of the people. If children are taught from a young age that this is wrong, it cannot happen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
Apparently it's the Christians that will suffer that fate with the New World Order, eh?
One can only dream.

Recap: Angelatc talks about gays being sent to the "ovens". (They were sent to the ovens after being gassed.) He said Christians will suffer that fate. You said "one can only dream".

Now feel free to continue with your mindless dribble.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[danberkeley]

It's more effective when people are grouped together. The london train bombings happened at a place of public transport, not on a road because it's more effective. Does that mean public transport is a bad thing? No!

When was the last time you saw a bombing at a local sporting event? Let say an
NFL footbal game or a MLB game, or NHL, or soccer. What about the mostly
publicly run and sponsored olympic games? Oh yeah, the Olympic game in 1996
were bombed. JFK was murdered on a public road although he had local, state,
and federal police protecting him. Oh yeah, and the guy who shot JFK was in a
PUBLIC schoolbook depository.

[jmdrake]

If there wasn't an explicit provision in the Constitution preventing the U.S.A adopting an official religion there is no doubt in my mind that an official religion would be established. This country is not free because of religion.

The country is free because it establishes both the freedom of religion (saves us from atheist dictatorship) and because of the non establishment of religion (saves from theocracy.) Both freedoms are explicitly needed if Christians and gays are to be saved from the "ovens". ;)

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

Recap: Angelatc talks about gays being sent to the "ovens". (They were sent to the ovens after being gassed.) He said Christians will suffer that fate. You said "one can only dream".

Because the wording there was very ambiguous on both sides, I made another post, which I keep pointing to where I clarified my position. When I said, "one can only dream" I meant (as you can see in my explanation) that only the religious could speak so lightly of violence and death (also a reference to Angelatc saying before that words cannot hurt, "merely offend") and I would not wish that upon anyone, that I wanted the Christians to be treated for their illness.

[angelatc]

It's more effective when people are grouped together.

Hey! So are Nazi showers and public schools!

[Tdcci]

freedom of religion (saves us from atheist dictatorship)

Atheist just means no belief in god, any dictator that does not believe in god runs an "atheist dictatorship"-- would you turn that around and say a dictator with belief would turn his country into a "theocraic dictatorship"? No, because it's ludicrous. There is no governing belief system for atheists, it is not a religion.

[jmdrake]

I'm for Ron Paul because of his policies that do not have to do with religion.


Ron Paul supporting the Bill of Rights as written is not a "religious" position. It's a freedom position. Your assault on personal beliefs are really an assault on freedom. Again people might have beliefs you don't like even if they aren't religious. Case in point the argument I made (which you continue to ignore) about communist persecution of homosexuality. The people enacting those persecutions didn't do so from a religious viewpoint because they had rejected religion. Ultimately everyone has a right to his or her own conscience.

[angelatc]

Because the wording there was very ambiguous on both sides, I made another post, which I keep pointing to where I clarified my position. When I said, "one can only dream" I meant (as you can see in my explanation) that only the religious could speak so lightly of violence and death (also a reference to Angelatc saying before that words cannot hurt, "merely offend") and I would not wish that upon anyone, that I wanted the Christians to be treated for their illness.

Ambiguous? I have never, ever been called that before. "Blunt" and "crass" I get a lot of, but never "ambiguous."

LOL!

I can tell you that if I were a Christian, my feelings would be hurt because you want to send me to an oven.

It should be illegal to say that, don't you think?

I'm pretty sure my sticks and stones remark came after your jaw-dropping revelation that you dream of seeing Christians cremated. Heck, maybe alive!

(Checked - yep - about 2 pages after, actually.)

[Deborah K]

Tdcci, what does this quote mean to you if you don't believe in God, religion, Christianity, etc. and prefer that no one else did:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights......"

[jmdrake]

Because the wording there was very ambiguous on both sides, I made another post, which I keep pointing to where I clarified my position. When I said, "one can only dream" I meant (as you can see in my explanation) that only the religious could speak so lightly of violence and death (also a reference to Angelatc saying before that words cannot hurt, "merely offend") and I would not wish that upon anyone, that I wanted the Christians to be treated for their illness.

:rolleyes: Sure that's what you meant. And McCain really didn't mean that he'd keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Anyway you want Christians treated for their "illness", atheists in the Soviet Union wanted Christians and gays treated for their "illness". No difference.

[Tdcci]

Tdcci, what does this quote mean to you if you don't believe in God, religion, Christianity, etc. and prefer that no one else did:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights......"

Creator in that context would then mean parents, but the message as a whole would not be watered down any.

[jmdrake]

Atheist just means no belief in god, any dictator that does not believe in god runs an "atheist dictatorship"-- would you turn that around and say a dictator with belief would turn his country into a "theocraic dictatorship"? No, because it's ludicrous. There is no governing belief system for atheists, it is not a religion.

If a Christian dictator treats non Christians as "mentally ill" then that is a theocratic dictatorship.

If an atheist dictator treats those who believe in God as "mentally ill" then that is an atheistic dictatorship.

It has nothing to do with the personal beliefs of the dictator and everything to do with how that dictator imposes those beliefs on others. You are just as bad as the "religious extremists" you are so against.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

If an atheist dictator treats those who believe in God as "mentally ill" then that is an atheistic dictatorship.

If a healthy dictator treats those who have autism as "mentally ill" then is it a healthy dictatorship? :D

If someone believed that the sky was red when it was not, and they could fly, they would be admitted to a mental institution. Why should it be any different because they believe some old man is up in the sky telling them to kill people? Because religion is one of society's sacred cows; no one wants to touch it because of the taboo. I'd like to change that.

[ErikBlack]

Single mothers? One of the benefits to marriage is getting to visit your spouse at the hospital. How can that apply to single mothers? They are all, in the same tone, collective rights. They are so being excluded.

How can that apply to single mothers? It applies the same way as it does to all non-married people who are in romantic relationships. If a single person wants to visit their significant other in a hospital they don't have any more right to do so than a gay person does. So gay people aren't special. Married people are the exception to the rule, not gay people.

[angelatc]

:rolleyes: Sure that's what you meant. And McCain really didn't mean that he'd keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Anyway you want Christians treated for their "illness", atheists in the Soviet Union wanted Christians and gays treated for their "illness". No difference.

Now, now, there's a big difference. One is right, and one is wrong. She gets to pick which hate is acceptable, or which intolerance is tolerable.

You're thinking about it wrong! Back to public school with you!

[Tdcci]

How can that apply to single mothers? It applies the same way as it does to all non-married people who are in romantic relationships. If a single person wants to visit their significant other in a hospital they don't have any more right to do so than a gay person does. So gay people aren't special. Married people are the exception to the rule, not gay people.

oh, you didn't mention the single mother's partner. They should be able to register with the state ("civil union") without going through a silly marriage ceremony

[angelatc]

Creator in that context would then mean parents, but the message as a whole would not be watered down any.

Only if the founding fathers were grammatically challenged. "Creator" is capitalized.

Guess again!

[Tdcci]

Now, now, there's a big difference. One is right, and one is wrong. She gets to pick which hate is acceptable, or which intolerance is tolerable.

You're thinking about it wrong! Back to public school with you!

You're more right than you think. One is a condition you are born with that does not harm anyone else, another is a condition where you have been brainwashed into obeying a faceless authority and his crazy laws.

[danberkeley]

I like how Tdcci ignores my previous post... lol

[Tdcci]

Only if the founding fathers were grammatically challenged. "Creator" is capitalized.

Guess again!

Then we need to strike out "Creator" in favor of a lowercase "creator".

[Tdcci]

I like how Tdcci ignores my previous post... lol

You said nothing to refute my explanation, that the shootings happen at public schools, public transportation areas, and other high traffic places because you get to maximize the death toll- you just cited some famous assassinations that were carried out for obviously different reasons

[jmdrake]

If a healthy dictator treats those who have autism as "mentally ill" then is it a healthy dictatorship? :D

Autism isn't a mental illness. It's a mental disability. If a dictator took someone who was autistic away from his parents and put him in a mental institution then no, that would not be a "healthy dictatorship". Actually there's no such thing as a healthy dictatorship but anyway.



If someone believed that the sky was red when it was not, and they could fly, they would be admitted to a mental institution. Why should it be any different because they believe some old man is up in the sky telling them to kill people? Because religion is one of society's sacred cows; no one wants to touch it because of the taboo. I'd like to change that.

So why don't you quit working for Ron Paul and instead work for an atheist candidate? I'm serious. Philles is libertarian and he's atheist. Of course he rejects all of your hateful communist "let's send the Christians to re-education camps" BS, but at least he's atheist.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[angelatc]

You're more right than you think. One is a condition you are born with that does not harm anyone else, another is a condition where you have been brainwashed into obeying a faceless authority and his crazy laws.

I absolutely get it. You want to insist that the children of other people be mandated to attend state-sponsored schools so you can brainwash them to believe in your faceless authority and crazy laws that you approve of.

Vive le resistance.

[jmdrake]

Now, now, there's a big difference. One is right, and one is wrong. She gets to pick which hate is acceptable, or which intolerance is tolerable.

You're thinking about it wrong! Back to public school with you!

LOL. Yes I'm mentally ill because I believe in freedom.

[Tdcci]

So why don't you quit working for Ron Paul and instead work for an atheist candidate? I'm serious. Philles is libertarian and he's atheist. Of course he rejects all of your hateful communist "let's send the Christians to re-education camps" BS, but at least he's atheist.

What's the point, then? If he isn't willing to stand up for his beliefs in the form of government policy, he's not worth working for.

[Deborah K]

Interesting thread.....

Tdcci, out of curiosity, what happened to you to make you so hostile toward Christianity? The vitriol in your posts indicates that there is emotion attached to your blanket statements about it [Christianity].


Creator in that context would mean parents.


Are you stating that throughout the Declaration of Independence the use of the term Creator is now being reinterpreted from its original meaning by atheists? Tell me, what good is a document, such as the Constitution, if every generation can reinterpret it to mean whatever their fleeting agenda is at the moment? How can the foundation of a government be considered stable in that case?

You seem to be in complete denial of the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and while I have already gathered that the mere thought of that puts your panties in a knot, it is none-the-less a fact that has been proven over and over again.

Having stated that, I am in no way in favor of condemning atheists or homosexuals, etc. I am for individual rights, not group rights, which have been traditionally rooted in the self-serving victim mentality. Your vitriol regarding Christianity is indicative of this kind of thinking. It is exactly the thing you protest against that you are practicing yourself. It clouds every other point you attempt to make.

[danberkeley]

You said nothing to refute my explanation, that the shootings happen at public schools, public transportation areas, and other high traffic places because you get to maximize the death toll- you just cited some famous assassinations that were carried out for obviously different reasons

In case you missed the assertion in my post. Stadiums are prime locations for
massacres. Why havent there been any massacres at private sporting events?

Why is it that most of the most "beloved" presidents, JFK, was murdered on a
government street while being protected by government police and the guy who
murdered him was stationed at a government book depository? Not only that but
the guy who murdered JFK was murdered at a governmetn police station.

[angelatc]

Then we need to strike out "Creator" in favor of a lowercase "creator".

Why??? Why do "we" need to do that?

Please tell me.

[Tdcci]

Why??? Why do "we" need to do that?

Please tell me.

Just so "we"'re all clear on what it means :)

[angelatc]

Autism isn't a mental illness. It's a mental disability. If a dictator took someone who was autistic away from his parents and put him in a mental institution then no, that would not be a "healthy dictatorship". Actually there's no such thing as a healthy dictatorship but anyway.



So why don't you quit working for Ron Paul and instead work for an atheist candidate? I'm serious. Philles is libertarian and he's atheist. Of course he rejects all of your hateful communist "let's send the Christians to re-education camps" BS, but at least he's atheist.

Regards,

John M. Drake

What if the dictator sent the people to ovens, because they would never be able to attend the schools that will turn them into happy, productive workers? Wouldn't that be healthy?

[Tdcci]

Why is it that most of the most "beloved" presidents, JFK, was murdered on a
government street while being protected by government police and the guy who
murdered him was stationed at a government book depository? Not only that but
the guy who murdered JFK was murdered at a governmetn police station.

Because he was statistically more likely to be hit on a public street, rather than a private street.

[angelatc]

Just so "we"'re all clear on what it means :)

So, you think they capitalized it unintentionally, then?

[jmdrake]

So why don't you quit working for Ron Paul and instead work for an atheist candidate? I'm serious. Philles is libertarian and he's atheist. Of course he rejects all of your hateful communist "let's send the Christians to re-education camps" BS, but at least he's atheist.
What's the point, then? If he isn't willing to stand up for his beliefs in the form of government policy, he's not worth working for.

He is standing up for his beliefs. One of his beliefs is that freedom comes above his personal views about God. But using your own logic you have no business campaigning for Dr. Paul. After all if people should "stand up for their beliefs" by imposing them on others then Dr. Paul should support theocracy, but he doesn't. Once again he believes in freedom. Why is freedom such a hard concept for you to grasp?

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

What if the dictator sent the people to ovens, because they would never be able to attend the schools that will turn them into happy, productive workers? Wouldn't that be healthy?

In terms of reducing the amount of sick people in the overall population?

[Tdcci]

Once again he believes in freedom. Why is freedom such a hard concept for you to grasp?

I rather like freedom, there is just one freedom I don't think is necessary for society, and could actually hurt it.

[angelatc]

In terms of reducing the amount of sick people in the overall population?

Does it matter?

[Tdcci]

So, you think they capitalized it unintentionally, then?

I don't know what they thought, they could have capitalized it for emphasis.

[jmdrake]

Just so "we"'re all clear on what it means :)

It meant what the people who wrote it meant when they wrote it.

But even if you go with the mentally retarded position that "creator" means "parent" in this context then it still destroys your whole reasoning for this entire thread. If parents are the supreme guarantor of "rights" then parents clearly have a right to home school regardless of what the state says. Point ... set ... match.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

It meant what the people who wrote it meant when they wrote it.

But even if you go with the mentally retarded position that "creator" means "parent" in this context then it still destroys your whole reasoning for this entire thread. If parents are the supreme guarantor of "rights" then parents clearly have a right to home school regardless of what the state says. Point ... set ... match.

Your first paragraph contradicts the second. This is a clarification as to what the founders felt, certainly not what I feel. If the founders believed that parents had the fundamental right to homeschool, regardless of their qualifications, I respectfully disagree.

[angelatc]

I don't know what they thought, they could have capitalized it for emphasis.

Which means you're implying that they were grammatically challenged.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights......"

So, if it does mean "that they are endowed by their PARENTS with certain unalienable Rights......"

what rights would you allow parents to give their children, especially if the parents don't have any rights?

[Deborah K]

Are you stating that throughout the Declaration of Independence the use of the term Creator is now being reinterpreted from its original meaning by atheists? Tell me, what good is a document, such as the Constitution, if every generation can reinterpret it to mean whatever their fleeting agenda is at the moment? How can the foundation of a government be considered stable in that case?

You seem to be in complete denial of the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and while I have already gathered that the mere thought of that puts your panties in a knot, it is none-the-less a fact that has been proven over and over again.

Having stated that, I am in no way in favor of condemning atheists or homosexuals, etc. I am for individual rights, not group rights, which have been traditionally rooted in the self-serving victim mentality. Your vitriol regarding Christianity is indicative of this kind of thinking. It is exactly the thing you protest against that you are practicing yourself. It clouds every other point you attempt to make.

?????

[angelatc]

In terms of reducing the amount of sick people in the overall population?

Still waiting to see if you're going to make the case for euthanizing the sick. That's a socialist plank too.

[jmdrake]

Your first paragraph contradicts the second.


No it doesn't. Reading comprehension must not be your strong point. In the first paragraph I make the point that the founders intent was clearly about the Creator in heaven as opposed to parents. But in the second paragraph I add that even if I CONCEDE your point with regards to what "creator" means in this context, that it undercuts your argument even further. So either way, you lose.



This is a clarification as to what the founders felt, certainly not what I feel. If the founders believed that parents had the fundamental right to homeschool, regardless of their qualifications, I respectfully disagree.

Again you're missing the point. If we use YOUR logic about the definition of "creator" in the quote that was given as being "parents" then that sets up parents as being the supreme guarantors of rights! Again, key word here. "IF". No matter how you slice this argument, you lose.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

Are you stating that throughout the Declaration of Independence the use of the term Creator is now being reinterpreted from its original meaning by atheists?

It can be if necessary- if Christians are using it as a Christian authority to oppress atheists. It's not a high priority, really.


Tell me, what good is a document, such as the Constitution, if every generation can reinterpret it to mean whatever their fleeting agenda is at the moment? How can the foundation of a government be considered stable in that case?

It serves as a outdated symbol, like the Queen of England.


You seem to be in complete denial of the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and while I have already gathered that the mere thought of that puts your panties in a knot, it is none-the-less a fact that has been proven over and over again.

No. It has not "been proven over and over again", just because they use the word Creator. Creator does not mean the popular god of our time, it could mean any god from any religion to nature, or whatever the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote it! Don't try to interpret their words to fit your agenda!

[jmdrake]

Which means you're implying that they were grammatically challenged.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights......"

So, if it does mean "that they are endowed by their PARENTS with certain unalienable Rights......"

what rights would you allow parents to give their children, especially if the parents don't have any rights?

Ding ding ding! Someone besides me gets the obvious contradiction in Tdcci's logic. (If it can in fact be called logic.) If the parents are the supreme entity "endowing" all of the rights then Tdcci has no "right" to complain about parents homeschooling. Point ... set ... match.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

If we use YOUR logic about the definition of "creator" in the quote that was given as being "parents" then that sets up parents as being the supreme guarantors of rights!

Regardless of what this "Creator" is, they are certainly not the guarantor of rights, rights are won on the battlefield and sometimes given as a gift to the next generation. My logic does not set up parents as being the supreme guarantors as rights to be clear, Deborah K asked what the sentence meant to an atheist, and I answered. It is largely a symbolic, not an authoritative document.

[danberkeley]

Which means you're implying that they were grammatically challenged.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights......"

So, if it does mean "that they are endowed by their PARENTS with certain unalienable Rights......"

what rights would you allow parents to give their children, especially if the parents don't have any rights?

Dude (or dudette), this is what some have already stated about Tdcci:


non sequiturs abound with you

[Tdcci]

Ding ding ding! Someone besides me gets the obvious contradiction in Tdcci's logic. (If it can in fact be called logic.) If the parents are the supreme entity "endowing" all of the rights then Tdcci has no "right" to complain about parents homeschooling. Point ... set ... match.

I'm not surprised that you choose to ignore facts inconvenient to you, it is a natural defense mechanism stimulated by religion. It is the only way you can keep your faith.

[jmdrake]

Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
Tell me, what good is a document, such as the Constitution, if every generation can reinterpret it to mean whatever their fleeting agenda is at the moment? How can the foundation of a government be considered stable in that case?

It serves as a outdated symbol, like the Queen of England.


The constitution is an outdated symbol? Are you channeling George W. Bush now? :eek: I have to ask once again why on earth are you supporting Ron Paul?

Regards,

John M. Drake

[kyleAF]

nm

[jmdrake]

I'm not surprised that you choose to ignore facts inconvenient to you, it is a natural defense mechanism stimulated by religion. It is the only way you can keep your faith.

Ignoring the facts? You've got it backwards toots. I'm quoting the facts and you're ignoring them. Once again the "facts" kill your own argument. If "creator" equals "parents" and "parents" are the ones "endowing rights" then "parents" have the "right" to homeschool. Point ... set ... match.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

The constitution is an outdated symbol? Are you channeling George W. Bush now? :eek: I have to ask once again why on earth are you supporting Ron Paul?

Oh please. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights......"

That sentence is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

[Tdcci]

Ignoring the facts? You've got it backwards toots. I'm quoting the facts and you're ignoring them. Once again the "facts" kill your own argument. If "creator" equals "parents" and "parents" are the ones "endowing rights" then "parents" have the "right" to homeschool. Point ... set ... match.

I did not say that parents are the ones endowing rights, I said that's how I would interpret that sentence as an atheist. I have a different philosophy in regard to rights (explained in a previous post) which differs from the people that wrote the document. Your argument would only make sense if you assumed that I took everything from the document as ultimate truth, which I don't.

[IRO-bot]

[QUOTE=Deborah K;1322500]

You seem to be in complete denial of the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and while I have already gathered that the mere thought of that puts your panties in a knot, it is none-the-less a fact that has been proven over and over again.
QUOTE]

OFF TOPIC!

I am not going to assume you feel this way at all, I am just using your quote at a topic point.
This is one thing that bothers me, and I want other thoughts as well. People love to us this as a right for crosses everywhere and prayers in school, and in god we trust. Regardless of whether the found meant freddom of religion i.e. (only christian sects, or for all) to me it doesn't work well. If you have a cross you need all other religious symbols otherwise it isn't freedom. Which is why it should be struck from all forms of the public activity. Thoughts anyone?

[jmdrake]

Oh please. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights......"

That sentence is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

I know that. But you replied directly to this statement.



Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
Tell me, what good is a document, such as the Constitution, if every generation can reinterpret it to mean whatever their fleeting agenda is at the moment? How can the foundation of a government be considered stable in that case?

Point ... set ... match.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

Try taking my kid... even "respectfully".

I am an atheist, have no problem with anyone, any race, any sexual orientation, anything.

But try taking my kid, and I will personally return the favor..."respectfully", of course. :mad:

(this is once / if I ever have kids...but I can certainly empathize)

If you "have no problem with anyone, any race, any sexual orientation, anything. " you are certainly more than qualified to homeschool your child.

[danberkeley]

Here is another one of my posts that Tdcci has ignored:


You responded to my response but you attributed the quote to the wrong person. Anyway, all the great colleges of this country have been privately founded and mostly by CHURCHES. Examples: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, Datmouth, Princeton, CalTech, MIT, Notre Dame, BYU, et cetera. Even the great public colleges, such as University of California, Berkeley, were privately founded.

I also forgot to mention Stanford University. Anyway, now it's free to attend Stanford if your parents make less than 100K a year.

[angelatc]

Oh please. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights......"

That sentence is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Which, not surprisingly, has absolutely nothing to do with the question you were asked.

Do you not believe that the Consitution is the basis for the laws and government structure in the United States?

[Tdcci]

I know that. But you replied directly to this statement. "Tell me, what good is a document, such as the Constitution, if every generation can reinterpret it to mean whatever their fleeting agenda is at the moment? How can the foundation of a government be considered stable in that case?"

Point ... set ... match.

I didn't mean the Constitution specifically, the phrase was "such as the Constitution" which could mean any old document or statement from generations before us.

[Tdcci]

Which, not surprisingly, has absolutely nothing to do with the question you were asked.

It does, that's where the Creator stuff came from.


Do you not believe that the Consitution is the basis for the laws and government structure in the United States?

Yes

[angelatc]

If you "have no problem with anyone, any race, any sexual orientation, anything. " you are certainly more than qualified to homeschool your child.

By that standard, you're about the only person who wouldn't qualify.

[Tdcci]

Here is another one of my posts that Tdcci has ignored:

I also forgot to mention Stanford University. Anyway, now it's free to attend Stanford if your parents make than 100K a year.

Some of the nicest colleges were funded by churches in their infancy. What is there to discuss?

[IRO-bot]

By that standard, you're about the only person who wouldn't qualify.

+1 :eek:

[jmdrake]

I didn't mean the Constitution specifically, the phrase was "such as the Constitution" which could mean any old document or statement from generations before us.

The point that was being made is that documents have to be interpreted as written. If someone can "reinterpret the DOI" willy nilly then someone can "reinterpret the constitution" on a whim too. If you want to ignore the DOI that's one thing. But quibbling over what "creator" means is just silly.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

By that standard, you're about the only person who wouldn't qualify.

In reality, most Christians would not qualify. The article that this thread is about describes homophobic Christians homeschooling their children so they can get away with abuse (their official court excuse was they didn't want their children exposed to "alternative lifestyles" but it was shot down, justice!)

[Tdcci]

The point that was being made is that documents have to be interpreted as written. If someone can "reinterpret the DOI" willy nilly then someone can "reinterpret the constitution" on a whim too. If you want to ignore the DOI that's one thing. But quibbling over what "creator" means is just silly.

It's not as easy as that, for example, the fourth amendment guards citizens against "unreasonable search and seizure", who gets to decide what's reasonable or not? That's for interpretation.

[angelatc]

It does, that's where the Creator stuff came from.

I know it's hard, but try to keep up. There was a segue in there:
Originally Posted by Deborah K :
Tell me, what good is a document, such as the Constitution, if every generation can reinterpret it to mean whatever their fleeting agenda is at the moment? How can the foundation of a government be considered stable in that case?
Point ... set ... match.




Yes

And does the Constitution forbid the government from outlawing Christianity?

[danberkeley]

Some of the nicest colleges were funded by churches in their infancy. What is there to discuss?

Apparently you have ADD. Anyway, I was responding to you post where you stated that we needed government funding of schools so that we could invest in
science, etc. So why is that most, if not all, of the greatest scientific research colleges have been privately founded and endowed?

[Tdcci]

And does the Constitution forbid the government from outlawing Christianity?

I'll leave that to the courts.

[jmdrake]

If you "have no problem with anyone, any race, any sexual orientation, anything. " you are certainly more than qualified to homeschool your child.

And that's the problem with public schools today. It doesn't matter if kids learn algebra or history or even how to read. As long as they've been taught to be "tolerant" then they're allowed to be ignorant. While I don't think the state should be trying to "qualify" home school teachers at all, certainly I would hope the qualifications would be based on actual material and not feel good politically correct BS. "Johnny can't read, write or compute, but by golly he can quote why PETA says it's wrong to wear fur. And he's been taught to be tolerant of NABLA and incest and everything else that the mentally ill have a problem with." :rolleyes:

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

I know it's hard, but try to keep up. There was a segue in there:


And does the Constitution forbid the government from outlawing Christianity?

Currently it does. But Tdcci wants to strip that part OUT of the constitution.

[Tdcci]

Apparently you have ADD. Anyway, I was responding to you post where you stated that we needed government funding of schools for that we could invest in
science, etc. So why is that most, if not all, of the greatest scientific research colleges have been privately founded and endowed?

It is not absolutely needed, but clean money, that is government money would help universities stay independent and objective in their research among other benefits.

[angelatc]

Regardless of what this "Creator" is, they are certainly not the guarantor of rights, rights are won on the battlefield and sometimes given as a gift to the next generation. My logic does not set up parents as being the supreme guarantors as rights to be clear, Deborah K asked what the sentence meant to an atheist, and I answered. It is largely a symbolic, not an authoritative document.

No, rights aren't won on the battlefield. They do not come from government.

We are born with them.

We're bordering on philosophy now. I'm going to offend you now, so close your eyes.

I warned you! Last chance!

I mean it!!

You're not doing well at logic, so I seriously don't see how you're going to handle philosophy.

[angelatc]

It is not absolutely needed, but clean money, that is government money would help universities stay independent and objective in their research among other benefits.

Why on earth would you think that government money is clean money?

[Tdcci]

Eyes Closed ;)

[Tdcci]

Why on earth would you think that government money is clean money?

That doesn't sound good, does it? Hm... let's call it public money.

[angelatc]

Currently it does. But Tdcci wants to strip that part OUT of the constitution.

She has a right to do that. Our Founders gave us that option. I won't vote for it, but I support the right for it to appear on the floor.

[pinkmandy]

Freedom of religion is good if you mean freedom from being forced to belong the state religion but freedom to practice your own religion is something I disagree with.



Do you mind if I put this one in my siggy? Totally priceless quote from such a devout "freedom lover". For others, there are all kinds of Tdcci jewels in this thread. ;)

[Tdcci]

Do you mind if I put this one in my siggy? Totally priceless quote from such a devout "freedom lover". For others, there are all kinds of Tdcci jewels in this thread. ;)

I don't mind.

[angelatc]

That doesn't sound good, does it? Hm... let's call it public money.

Well, no, public money implies it was donated. Let's call it tax money.

Why do you think that tax money is clean? Government money comes with more strings attached than any other funding source!

Sheesh! Stem cell research, AIDs research - these are the kinds of political hot potatoes that beg the free market to take over!

[jmdrake]

It's not as easy as that, for example, the fourth amendment guards citizens against "unreasonable search and seizure", who gets to decide what's reasonable or not? That's for interpretation.

Actually it is that simple. Some things are obvious. Some things clearly require interpretation. It's obvious that nobody thought parents endowed anyone with inalienable rights and that the "creator" these people were talking about (most of whom believed in God in some form or fashion) was God. Now the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is clearly up to interpretation. Going back to your example the question of whether or not someone rummaging through your house constitutes a "search" isn't up to interpretation. But what clarifies this even further is the entire amendment which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Key phrase here is "probable cause" and NOT "reasonable". Stephen Hadley, former director of the NSA and current CIA director, tried to argue a reporter down and claim that "probable cause" was not in the fourth amendment and that only "reasonable" mattered.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/23/18342/1340

These things are clear, except for when the powers that be don't WANT them to be clear.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

Why do you think that tax money is clean? Government money comes with more strings attached than any other funding source!

That's a good thing, just like how government funding for the corporation for public broadcasting ensures minimal bias in public broadcasting.

[jmdrake]

She has a right to do that. Our Founders gave us that option. I won't vote for it, but I support the right for it to appear on the floor.

Well I would try to kill it before it left committee. The founding fathers gave that right too. ;)

[danberkeley]

It is not absolutely needed, but clean money, that is
government money would help universities stay independent and objective in
their research among other benefits.

You are absolutely correct. However, public funding of college increases the cost
of attending the college. Not only that, all the colleges I've mentioned, with
the exception of the University of California, Berkekely, have remained
independant and objective in their research WITHOUT government funding.

As for the University of California, Berkeley, that school is now publicly funded. UC
Berkeley has had to rasie it's tuition fees and cut of spending because of terrible
central planning by the State of California. Meanwhile, the privately endowed
Stanford University receives so much from private endowments that it now does
not charge tuituion to students who's parents make less than $100K.

[angelatc]

I'll leave that to the courts.

It's been ruled on lots of times...

[Tdcci]

It's been ruled on lots of times...

That doesn't make it right. The courts have also ruled forcing Japanese Americans into camps was constitutional.

[jmdrake]

That's a good thing, just like how government funding for the corporation for public broadcasting ensures minimal bias in public broadcasting.

ROTFLMAO! You do realize don't you that NPR was a part of the suit to stop the public from regaining control of our own airwaves through broader availability of low power FM don't you? Had NPR's side lost Ron Paul radio might have been broadcast over the air instead of mainly just over the internet.

[Tdcci]

You are absolutely correct. However, public funding of college increases the cost
of attending the college.

Why is the opposite true in Canada, Europe, and Japan?

[angelatc]

That's a good thing, just like how government funding for the corporation for public broadcasting ensures minimal bias in public broadcasting.

And it also allows for crap shows like Sesame Street to continue into eternity, even though I've never met a kid that liked it.

Nobody watches PBS. The only time they have any good programming on is when they're begging for voluntary donations. Why do you think that is?

[danberkeley]

That doesn't make it right. The courts have also ruled forcing Japanese Americans into camps was constitutional.

Hypocrite!

[unklejman]

I'm telling you guys, joke account, which is grounds for banning on some of the more lenient forums I frequent (way more lenient than this one.) Not that I want Tdcci ban't, he/she is quite hilarious.

[pinkmandy]

That doesn't make it right. The courts have also ruled forcing Japanese Americans into camps was constitutional.


After 30 or so pages of you arguing that the courts and judges should decide who can homeschool, etc. now the courts aren't constitutional? Lmao, you are too much.

Honestly, we KNOW you aren't a RP supporter. Not possible. Who does fit your views? Who do you support? Just curious.

[pinkmandy]

I'm telling you guys, joke account, which is grounds for banning on some of the more lenient forums I frequent (way more lenient than this one.)

We all know. ;)

[danberkeley]

I'm telling you guys, joke account, which is grounds for banning on some of the more lenient forums I frequent (way more lenient than this one.) Not that I want Tdcci ban't, he/she is quite hilarious.

Read my previous posts about Tdcci. :)

[kyleAF]

It is not absolutely needed, but clean money, that is government money would help universities stay independent and objective in their research among other benefits.

Whoa whoa whoa...

Clean Money???

The State is an instrument of force --- and nothing else.

The State has no money except for the money that it confiscates on penalty of imprisonment and death.

On Penalty of imprisonment or death... that's not "clean" money as far as I'm concerned.


------------------------------

As a fellow atheist (I'm guessing that you are), I can understand your plight. And don't anyone else on here give me any BS about atheists not being stigmatized... there's a religious test to be President, not an atheistic test. However, the 1st amendment allows for public recognition of religion, and I completely agree with it.

What it doesn't allow for is the public enforcement of beliefs on anyone. This includes anti-religious beliefs. These are to be left to the families, and to the individual.

Trying to argue in this forum that children should be forced to attend some sort of propaganda system just because their parents may not be entirely intelligent, isn't going to fly.

Remember: the state is force, and nothing more. Whether that force is being used for what you believe is good or not, it's still force. It's still bad to initiate it.

[Tdcci]

And it also allows for crap shows like Sesame Street to continue into eternity, even though I've never met a kid that liked it.

I watched Sesame Street, and I liked it. It is so much better than the stuff on cable, which is designed to excite you so you're more susceptible to advertising.


Nobody watches PBS. The only time they have any good programming on is when they're begging for voluntary donations. Why do you think that is?

Many people watch PBS (not as many who listen to NPR, but that's because you can multitask there). They always have interesting stuff (What other station would carry hard hitting investigative reports like Expose, documentaries that ask tough questions like Frontline?) and asking for donations is better than advertising.

[angelatc]

That doesn't make it right. The courts have also ruled forcing Japanese Americans into camps was constitutional.

Yes, but the words about religion are pretty succinct.

And yet you're the one who wants the courts and judges to decide everything?

How does that work?

[danberkeley]

Why is the opposite true in Canada, Europe, and Japan?

That's not true. More Canadians, Europeans, and Japanese come here to attend college than so vice versa. The other flaw with your argument is that you probably haven't accounted for inflation and currency exchange.

[Tdcci]

Honestly, we KNOW you aren't a RP supporter. Not possible. Who does fit your views? Who do you support? Just curious.

Ron Paul. I support getting out of Iraq, fair competition in money, the second amendment, and border security. I am not pleased with his religion, but no atheist at this time in history can get elected to public office without pretending to be a Christian, so I must compromise.

[angelatc]

I watched Sesame Street, and I liked it. It is so much better than the stuff on cable, which is designed to excite you so you're more susceptible to advertising.


That's why the liberals like it. I'm not saying no kids like it, but every kid I've met liked Blue's Clues. None of them liked Sesame Street.




Many people watch PBS (not as many who listen to NPR, but that's because you can multitask there). They always have interesting stuff (What other station would carry hard hitting investigative reports like Expose, documentaries that ask tough questions like Frontline?) and asking for donations is better than advertising.

Better for who? The taxpayer who is forced to pay for crap they don't even watch?

[Tdcci]

And yet you're the one who wants the courts and judges to decide everything?

How does that work?

The Courts, like Government in general are not perfect, but they're the best we have. This particular decision (in the first post) was the right decision, but the decisions on religion are the wrong decisions, and should be overturned.

[Tdcci]

Better for who? The taxpayer who is forced to pay for crap they don't even watch?

Better for the less privileged who can't afford cable?

[danberkeley]

Ron Paul. I support getting out of Iraq, fair competition in money, the second amendment, and border security. I am not pleased with his religion, but no atheist at this time in history can get elected to public office without pretending to be a Christian, so I must compromise.

Woah, woah, woah. The Supreme Court has ruled against the Second Amendment. Therefore and according to your skewed logic, you cannot be in favor of the Second Amendment because the courts have ruled on it and you must side with the Supreme Court.

[Tdcci]

Woah, woah, woah. The Supreme Court has ruled against the Second Amendment. Therefore and according to you skewed logic, you cannot be in favor of the Second Amendment becuase the courts have ruled on it and you must side with the Supreme Court.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322722&postcount=355

[danberkeley]

Better for the less privileged who can't afford cable?

That preposterous! Blues Clues is available over the free airwaves. Not only that,
but there are thousands of organizations that provide free education and other free services to "less privileged" people.

[danberkeley]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322722&postcount=355

Sorry, dude/duddette/octopus. The courts are not the best we have. That's why we have the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. Ever heard of "checks & balances"? No, they have nothing to do with the banking industry.

[danberkeley]

I've made the last three posts on this thread! I think I won the argument! YEEEEESSSSSS!!!!!! :-D

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Only if they are out to win friends. Hate speech shouldn't be a crime. Offfending somebody is not the same as punching them.

If your feelings are hurt by things people are saying, then your convictions aren't really very strong.

Actually words can potentially do much more damage to someone than a punch could. I am not saying that certain words should be outlawed, just that there is more consequence and scenarios than merely " hurt feelings. "

[jmdrake]

I'm telling you guys, joke account, which is grounds for banning on some of the more lenient forums I frequent (way more lenient than this one.) Not that I want Tdcci ban't, he/she is quite hilarious.

You're probably right. :cool:

[Deborah K]

Tdcci: It can be if necessary- if Christians are using it as a Christian authority to oppress atheists. It's not a high priority, really.

It serves as a outdated symbol, like the Queen of England.

No. It has not "been proven over and over again", just because they use the word Creator. Creator does not mean the popular god of our time, it could mean any god from any religion to nature, or whatever the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote it! Don't try to interpret their words to fit your agenda!

You seem to be completely confused about our founding fathers and their documents. Try reading some history. It isn't I who is trying to interpret their words to fit my agenda. LOL! That's funny! You are the one who is in denial about the founders, who were primarily religious.

The fact that you can so easily dismiss our founding documents as outdated symbols would be terrifying if you were to be taken seriously. Your goals are not in line with the founders goals, clearly. Reinterpretation of the founding documents is nothing short of revising history. Just wondering, have you ever read George Orwell's book 1984? You should read it, you remind me of Big Brother.

[Deborah K]

Regardless of what this "Creator" is, they are certainly not the guarantor of rights, rights are won on the battlefield and sometimes given as a gift to the next generation. My logic does not set up parents as being the supreme guarantors as rights to be clear, Deborah K asked what the sentence meant to an atheist, and I answered. It is largely a symbolic, not an authoritative document.

This remark is also misguided. It assumes that government gives us our rights and when the founders of this country broke allegience to G.B. - which is what the DOI is- they DECLARED that only God the Creator gives us our rights. Look up the word unalienable:

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.


BTW, the founders refered to Black's Law Dictionary more than any other source.

It is dangerous to assume that our rights are given to us by the government. If they can give them to us, they can take them away. Our founders understood this and fought against it. Your nonchalant attitude about our founding documents sends chills up my spine.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

This remark is also misguided. It assumes that government gives us our rights and when the founders of this country broke allegience to G.B. - which is what the DOI is- they DECLARED that only God the Creator gives us our rights. Look up the word unalienable:

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.


BTW, the founders refered to Black's Law Dictionary more than any other source.

It is dangerous to assume that our rights are given to us by the government. If they can give them to us, they can take them away. Our founders understood this and fought against it. Your nonchalant attitude about our founding documents sends chills up my spine.

nicely stated

[danberkeley]

You seem to be completely confused about our founding fathers and their documents. Try reading some history. It isn't I who is trying to interpret their words to fit my agenda. LOL! That's funny! You are the one who is in denial about the founders, who were primarily religious.

The fact that you can so easily dismiss our founding documents as outdated symbols would be terrifying if you were to be taken seriously. Your goals are not in line with the founders goals, clearly. Reinterpretation of the founding documents is nothing short of revising history. Just wondering, have you ever read George Orwell's book 1984? You should read it, you remind me of Big Brother.

lol. of course, Tdcci's entire premise is that the Constitution is open to interpretation.

[Deborah K]

lol. of course, Tdcci's entire premise is that the Constitution is open to interpretation.


That's a problem with many atheists. If the Constitution is open to interpretation according to the fleeting agendas of each generation, then it is inevitable that it will be MISinterpreted and thus bastardized.

The founding documents are the solid foundation that was layed for this new nation. They are the supreme law of the land. Undermining the foundation of our nation will be its undoing.

Tdcci, it is, shall I say, at the very least, rather naive of you to proclaim that our founding documents are nothing more than relics. What is so unnerving about your remarks though, is that you are not alone in your thinking. I've debated many atheists who attempt to dismiss the fact that this country was founded on judeo-christian principles - and if you think it isn't - I'd be happy to start another thread and school you on it.

[JGalt]

holy crap... I feel like I'm reading an ayn rand book or something.

Welcome to the machine.

[clouds]

haha. i was especially referring to their grey talk :)

[LibertyEagle]

It is so sad that political idealogies that have a rational position on religion are so few and far between, that whenever I reveal myself to be an atheist I am accused of being a communist :(

My question had nothing to do with you being an atheist and everything to do with your wanting big government to enforce an edict that individuals are no longer free to practice the religion of their choice. That is not liberty that you're describing, Tdcci.

[jmdrake]

Tdcci, it is, shall I say, at the very least, rather naive of you to proclaim that our founding documents are nothing more than relics.

I've got it! The DOI and constitution are really part of a treasure map!

http://media.outnow.ch/Movies/Posters/Store/n/national_treasure.2004.jpg

[Doktor_Jeep]

C'mon guys do the homework.

This is naziism.


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

(Start around page 40 I think)...
http://books.google.com/books?id=yTPyU5Zz7e0C&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=nazi+germany+%22education+policy%22&source=web&ots=4fJ9PZIJDo&sig=HpsghtQg5GsLjS0k1n RLYILPsmg&hl=en#PPP1,M1

[danberkeley]

C'mon guys do the homework.

This is naziism.


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF

(Start around page 40 I think)...
http://books.google.com/books?id=yTPyU5Zz7e0C&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=nazi+germany+%22education+policy%22&source=web&ots=4fJ9PZIJDo&sig=HpsghtQg5GsLjS0k1n RLYILPsmg&hl=en#PPP1,M1

yeah. we know.

[Doktor_Jeep]

Do you not smell the blood in the ground from the last time these ideals were allowed to take root? 10 million innocent souls killed in death camps, another 55 million in war.

What are you going to do about it?

[Mayflower]

According to UK papers families are fleeing Germany and going to the UK. Germany is using a 1938 law that does not allow home schooling. If the parents persist the State will take them.
We have a bunch of deranged commies running California. The first article on wnd.com today is "Next on school agenda-Communism. California again!!!!

[Tdcci]

That's a problem with many atheists. If the Constitution is open to interpretation according to the fleeting agendas of each generation, then it is inevitable that it will be MISinterpreted and thus bastardized.

That's the problem with Christians, they generalize groups of people on what they see from an individual. In this case, it's what you WANT to see in me. You didn't ask me that DOI question because you wanted an answer. You wanted a quote so you could a strawman, the "loose interpretation"/"constitution means nothing" strawman. Worst thing of all, you are using it to promote your barbaric backwards religion.

The United States of America was not founded on "Judeo-Christian principles". Sure, you can argue that just war, kindness, etc are demonstrated in the Bible, but rape, murder, and child abuse are also taught from the Bible.

[Deborah K]

That's the problem with Christians, they generalize groups of people on what they see from an individual. In this case, it's what you WANT to see in me. You didn't ask me that DOI question because you wanted an answer. You wanted a quote so you could a strawman, the "loose interpretation"/"constitution means nothing" strawman. Worst thing of all, you are using it to promote your barbaric backwards religion.


All one need do is read your posts to see that you accuse others of things you do yourself. I said "many Atheists" and you say, "that's the problem with Christians" implying ALL Christians. You talk about "generalizing and grouping" and that's exactly what you do with regard to Christianity and the religious in general. Hipocrisy at its finest.

Then you wrongly assume that I am promoting [my ]barbaric backwards religion." I don't practice any particular religion.

I don't need a strawman, your own words prove you think the founding documents are useless:


Regardless of what this "Creator" is, they are certainly not the guarantor of rights, rights are won on the battlefield and sometimes given as a gift to the next generation. My logic does not set up parents as being the supreme guarantors as rights to be clear, Deborah K asked what the sentence meant to an atheist, and I answered. It is largely a symbolic, not an authoritative document


The United States of America was not founded on "Judeo-Christian principles". Sure, you can argue that just war, kindness, etc are demonstrated in the Bible, but rape, murder, and child abuse are also taught from the Bible

You need a history lesson:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=126770