03-04-2004, 11:34 PM
that would be "segregation of church and state", Topper.
Header - I called your point "stupid", let's not misquote, sir. That would be bad press.
Sloats - Unless you were there, back in 1776 or so, how would you know what the true intention of "sepearation of church & state" was?
It's pretty clear to me - all the citizens who live under this government would have the right to worship whichever diety they pleased. How does that translate "seperation of church and state" to mean: "We, the People will base any and all future laws on that of the Bible"?
Quite simply, it's bullshit that we see various government figures urging to push their religious beliefs through the creation and enforcement of various laws.
It's apparent that the WASP segment of our governent still yields the power still to this very day. Don't you think it's a bit funny to see how certain officials cringe at the idea of those in the Iraqi Interim Government/Council pushing for Islamic values into their constitution, scoffing at such a notion yet applaud Bush for pursing to ratify such an oppressive amendment?
Hypocrisy at its' finest.
To deny homosexuals thier right to "unions" or "marriages" (whatever you want to call it) is simply inhumane and contradictory to our "Land of the Free" mantra.
Our president claims victory as we go to Afghanistan and beyond and fight for freedom for oppressed citizens of thrid world countries, but this very same president wants to limit the rights of his own fellow americans, just because they prefer the same sex when being intimate?
There is no rationale to counter this point; Any and all reasons against my point is based in outdated, questionably fanatical, religiously flavored bullshit.
Fuck your God. Those who fight in His name, hiding under the vail of righteousness, is ultimately an oppressor.
If I could, I'd ask our presiident:
Who the fuck are you to tell a homosexual that he/she can't have a government recognized bond, affording them the opportunity to raise a family with his/her "life partner", solely because it went against the laws of any particular religious establishment?
Last time I checked, this wasn't "Land of the Free, Oppressors of the Gay".
Header - I called your point "stupid", let's not misquote, sir. That would be bad press.
Sloats - Unless you were there, back in 1776 or so, how would you know what the true intention of "sepearation of church & state" was?
It's pretty clear to me - all the citizens who live under this government would have the right to worship whichever diety they pleased. How does that translate "seperation of church and state" to mean: "We, the People will base any and all future laws on that of the Bible"?
Quite simply, it's bullshit that we see various government figures urging to push their religious beliefs through the creation and enforcement of various laws.
It's apparent that the WASP segment of our governent still yields the power still to this very day. Don't you think it's a bit funny to see how certain officials cringe at the idea of those in the Iraqi Interim Government/Council pushing for Islamic values into their constitution, scoffing at such a notion yet applaud Bush for pursing to ratify such an oppressive amendment?
Hypocrisy at its' finest.
To deny homosexuals thier right to "unions" or "marriages" (whatever you want to call it) is simply inhumane and contradictory to our "Land of the Free" mantra.
Our president claims victory as we go to Afghanistan and beyond and fight for freedom for oppressed citizens of thrid world countries, but this very same president wants to limit the rights of his own fellow americans, just because they prefer the same sex when being intimate?
There is no rationale to counter this point; Any and all reasons against my point is based in outdated, questionably fanatical, religiously flavored bullshit.
Fuck your God. Those who fight in His name, hiding under the vail of righteousness, is ultimately an oppressor.
If I could, I'd ask our presiident:
Who the fuck are you to tell a homosexual that he/she can't have a government recognized bond, affording them the opportunity to raise a family with his/her "life partner", solely because it went against the laws of any particular religious establishment?
Last time I checked, this wasn't "Land of the Free, Oppressors of the Gay".