Thanks ACLU: War Memorial To Be Torn Down

I guess that means you're going to ask again. Here's your answer:

I stand by post 225.

he wasn't actually elected to the Senate. however i would have voted for him anyway. (he was nominated by the governor due to the death of one of our Senators from GA) i know this is useless info but I'm proud of my State and its influence

you can't be serious!

So, your point is that because there are "Christian Nationalists" with an agenda there can't also be an attack on Christianity like the ORIGINAL POST suggests?

I am serious. Please explain the significance of the image. I don't understand.

Asking Christians to respect the separation of church and state and abide by the law can hardly be characterized as an attack, unless you believe Christians have a right to take over the country at the expense of everyone else they share it with.

In reference to the 3 little pigs:

Oh, I see.

Thats cute

ok if you have a christian congressman, they will hopefully follow thier beliefs right? well i believe it has already been stated that 80% of the country is christian, so who do you think holds the offices? a large majority of them are occupied by christians its impossible to have a seperation of chruch and state.

It's not a "majority rule" system. That's why we're a democratic republic and not a pure democracy. If you have a Christian congressman they will hopefully follow the law first and foremost. We live in a pluralistic society no matter how much that 80% majority would like to pretend otherwise. It's time they started to act like it.

Well, that's the debate, isn't it.

The rest of your statement was just rhetorical filler. Nobody here has suggested that Christians should take over the country

chip please take note that I edited my post because upon rereading it it didn't make the point i intended to make. sorry for the mistake

oh and it is a majority rule system, because you have to have a majority vote to pass bills and make them into law

now the thing is who made those laws?

oh yeah Christians did, so unless all public office holders are atheist there can be no seperation of church and state

Not in so many words. Suggesting that resistance to unconstitutional acts by Christians is an attack on Christianity is basically the same thing. It's the same kind of argument Kiamat uses when he suggest my opposition to the war equates to a hatred of the troops, or when dissenters are accused of hating Americal, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The memorial is in violation of state and federal law and it was since the day it was built. Christians shouldn't get a free pass when it comes to violating church state separation. Those laws exist to protect minorities from the tyrrany of the majority. They need to be enforced.

The majority voted for Gore. We got Shrubbery.

Your point of view is arrogant and frightening.

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison

Snakes on a Plane.

what does the presidential election have to do with Congress? which is what i was talking about. oh and just in case you haven't figured it out. I voted for Bush


oh and chip how can simple truth be arrogant? explain that to me? now if you take a step back you'll see that I am right about that, if they are expected to vote the way they believe, and part of their believe is in say Christianity don't you think that would influence how they think, vote etc?

Just disproving your majority rules democracy. As said before, democratic republic, not true democracy.

doesn't work that way IN CONGRESS which is where our laws come from last time i checked

as i've said before all i am talking about is how it works inside Congress. the Presidential election process is a farce and irrelevent now.

The constitution defines a process through which the many voices of US citizens can be heard and weighed, in order to decide what we all can or cannot do and how we will get along. It's an elegant system because it limits the power of the most powerful people and groups by making them work toward concensus.

In particular, there is a system of courts which make decisions when people strongly disagree. Here is a case in point: many in this thread and presumably lots more in the country at large agree with the ruling. There are enough of them and they care enough about it that they deserved a day in court.

All the ACLU did was to bring the case and argue it. Blaming them for the outcome can only mean one of a few things:

= They had some sort of undue influence on the judge.

= The constitution was clearly in support of their case, but the constitution was clearly wrong; so that we all had an obligation not to bring the question up, and the ACLU just couldn't keep their briefs off the table.

= The court system is so broken that it is a bad idea to the point of being morally wrong to ever bring a case there.

If there's an option that I'm not seeing, please let me know.

--Allie.

Which have to be enforced by the executive branch and upheld by the judicial. So no, congress is only a -part- of the law process.

Well shit, if you know all this stuff why doesn't everybody? It's a discussion. You don't like attacks on your views just the same as anyone else.

Is it at least possible that the attacks work both ways? Christianity can be on the offensive and defensive at the same time. And folks like you are not driven by constitutional law when you seek to erase monuments that use religous symbols. Many people feel that you use the constitution as a weapon against fair and reasonable displays of cultural symbols (yes, christian traditions are part of our culture - AMERICAN culture).

So, it works both ways. You would do your side of the argument a lot of good to admit that. Otherwise, you are as bad as those you protest against.

Yes. I had figured that out.

true however, the executive branch doesn't have all that much say in WHAT they are enforcing. IE do the local sheriff's make the laws they enforce? no they don't set the speed limit yet they do a damned good job pulling you over for it. i fail to see what the enforcement of the law has to do with creating it, now the judicial branch interprets the laws based on thier understanding of the law, HOWEVER the Supreme Court is a majority rule system which further proves my point.

Crosses aren't a part of my culture. Im American. Its part of the CHRISTIAN culture, not American.