So what? What about the insurance salesman? What about kids selling candy for school fundraisers?

If someone is not welcome, just say no and shut the door.

Offering religion, candy, insurance, etc., is NOT intolerent. That term, however, specifically describes the people that want to shut the former down.

Please note how the Constitution was signed (underlined portion my emphasis):

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"

Source: http://constitutionus.com/

Its in there - specifically as a reference to the religiously held birth year of Jesus no less - just not where you expected it. Yes - I am fully aware of the fact that was the normal language of the day - but that language IS religious, IS in the constitution - and IS in specific reference to God - and in fact IS in reference to the Xtian God at that.....

Now - to the question of what I would change. Simple - the 1st amendment would be used as it is listed. IF a person is elected as required by law to an office, he is not required to check his morals (which are bounded as much in his religion - or lack of it - as anything else) at the door. This means that its not the job of government to be involved in anything religious - but there is no prohibition on religion acting in accordance with its moral code and promoting that code within society PROVIDED that such action does not impinge on the rights of others. There shall be no establishment of religion, and no prohibitions on its free excercise - meaning that if I want to put up a billboard that says "God loves you" - the billboard isn't making everyone read it, its not violating anyone elses rights, and as such should not have the government ruling it must be taken down because it "offends" someone. That someone can just not look at it. Just like if I did that - an athiest that wanted to could put up a billboard down the road that says "Dog is love" or some other athiestic mantra (I live in a "very" progressive area - filled with such) and I don't have to look at it either.

Basically - the only thing that would change is that you couldn't use "Its religious" as an excuse to fight something just because you don't agree with it.

Yes - I am sure someone is going to come up with "what about education - you want GOD in that don't you!" - well - I simply have to point at the constitution and respond with "Its not the job of the US Government to be educating the kids of this nation - that falls to the States, and local governments, and the Department of "re"Education has no basis to exist and is an infringement on the rights of the States, and should be abolished. Let the states, locals and parents in the areas where their kids are make the determinations of what they want their kids taught. Its not the Federal government's job to be every kid's nanny." Thus - if parents want their kids taught "creation", or "intelligent design", or "evolution", its their tax dollars - they should have the say. If they want all three - then let em have it. Who made the people in Washington so smart that they know what works in Hoboken, NY or Boise, Idaho, or Los Angeles, when they are not there every day dealing with those areas and their respective challenges. The people on the ground can make those decisions better than some politician in Washington, and that means that they can decide what they want taught. Sure, you may get some hickville in West Virginia (and that is an example - not slamming WVA) that decides the only thing they are going to teach is from the bible. OK - well - if they want to not know how to add, or to teach their kids to do it, thats unfortunate. Or a school in Seattle that wants to teach some new theory of evolution that says that the moon really is made of green cheese and that no one else agrees with - that is their choice. Again unfortunate - but in every case where it "could" go wrong - don't you think that its much more likely that the idiocy will be seen by the public at large and be stopped? After all - opening up decisions to the people that are paying for stuff usually tends to make sure that money is spent wisely.....

Are you seriously suggesting making education a popularity contest ie. teaching that which is popular with parents rather than that which is the most factually accurate and supported by evidence?
Because last I remember you were completely demolished in your own creation vs evolution thread which had almost nothing to do with evolution.

Antikrist - As for the Creationism vs Evolution thread - as I stated in the beginning of it - it was a debate - and when you debate something, sometimes you have to take a position you personally do not agree with. Perhaps you are not familiar with debate training - but that is actually a requirement in most places to pass such courses. My skills in it are out of date and rusty, plus I can't find the thread LOL - but it served its purpose. If you think that a thread in which I started an honest discussion that brought forth good scientific arguements was somehow a "demolishing" of my own views, your are not only sadly mistaken, but also prove you know nothing of my own personal views on the matter - or the real purpose of a debate.

Regarding education - no - what I am suggesting is giving local control - AND state control - to the education system. (You did notice I mentioned the state up there, didn't you???) No state in the union would go along with not teaching kids to read, or teaching them only stuff found in religous texts. Sorry - but if you think your going to get an entire state to go along with such idiocy - well - you have no clue how things work then. Sure, a little hickville could have some negative influence - but standards would still be in place at the STATE level - which is how it was supposed to be to start with. State government - being alot more dependant on the local people - is much more responsive when those same locals raise a fuss - while Washington can get 100,000 people marching and its an "inconvienence" but nothing more. They write it off - States don't.... Bringing power closer to the people it affects isn't a negative.....

So I guess I'll have to ask for some examples. I hear Christians (or people calling themselves Christians) talking fire and brimstone against pretty much anybody who doesn't meet their standards. I see them on TV all the time. I never see any atheists doing that. Not that I'm either.

Y'know i've had religious proselytizers knock on my door maybe 10 times in the past 30 years. A simple "not interested" has always sent them away without a problem. Apparently they can indeed "just live and let live".

Seriously I just don't see why such a rare and insignificant event should elicit such strong negative emotions.

So you see them on TV, heh?

Well, in my daily life, I bump shoulders with Christians many times, and never once has any of them preached "fire and brimstone". Maybe a few have the "Fish" emblem on their car, maybe even a prominant cross displayed. Or even a "what would Jesus do?".

You know what I see from atheists? Condescending bumper stickers displaying parodies of Christian symbologies. Slogans condemning people who believe differently as stupid. And not to mention the absolutely imbecilic idea that somehow religion has led to war and violence more frequently than other human constructs (racism and cultural/territorial conflicts come to mind).

And these are things I see daily.

Also, as an aside, I've tend to find those who are driving with conservative, religious imagery or slogans displayed to be far more polite and considerate than the others. :|\\

Steve..... your kidding right?

Go to google... type in:

athiest sues

the results..... About 851,000 results....

Everything from suing to remove "in God we trust" from money to a guy suing his childhood friend who became a priest for daring to tell people that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person! I mean c'mon.....

Atheist harrass - via lawsuit - people who they have no connection with - all in the sake of FURTHERING their OWN desire - remove God from everything... Take crosses off the gravestones of fallen military heroes, remove crosses at war memorials, etc etc....

851,000 results..... yea - they couldn't be out to impede the rights of others now could they?

*Edit - you see them on TV.... somehow that makes them intrusive and intolerant? Its easy to change the channel - their "intolerance" has no affect on you - unless you ALLOW it to. If they were out there chasing you down the street then they would be violating your rights and HARRASSING you - just like athiests do to anyone who disagrees with their agenda - but Xtians don't do that.... so who is worse again?

I think part of it is that those people - Christians and non-Christians alike - who are of the "live and let live" variety feel no need to be out there "talking fire and brimstone" against people who don't share their beliefs or live by their rules. If you're not dead set on everybody else converting to your beliefs, or else, there's no reason to rant and rail about why you're right and they're wrong and threaten them with whatever punishment supposedly awaits anyone who disagrees.

To a "live and let live" person, what someone else believes or how they live is not a burning issue as long everybody has the same freedoms and rights in respect to those things. They are not mortally offended by diversity or by a society that allows it to flourish instead of treating it as a crime or a sin. They do not see non-conformity as a threat against the validity of their own belief system, and they do not experience the insecurity and anger that comes from watching other people who do not conform to it live happy and productive lives anyway.

So the people who are most vocal and who tend to be most noticeable as the "face" of this or that ideology are, almost by default, the ones who ARE mortally offended by diversity of belief and feel that it should be controlled, mandated against, or stamped out entirely. They are the ones out there making a fuss, getting the press coverage, and stirring up controversy.

908,000 if you google "christian sues"...

There's pushers and prosthletizers on both sides. And a silent majority that just want to be left alone to believe what they feel is right. Either way, raw Google search numbers are a pretty poor benchmark.

This is my MO as well.. however the wife has been known to proclaim herself as a pagin. That makes them scratch their heads. :haha:

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_H...eligious_views

Then why are atheists extremely underrepresented in the US prison population?

It's true that religion can be can be used to attain purely secular goals.

But beliefs have consequences, and a lot of violence happens for solely religious reasons.

If that's true and I doubt it is then i'd bet it's for the same reason that atheists are extremely underrepresented in foxholes.

"Christian sues" gives 1,290,000 results. :D

As a social studies teacher in the great state of Texas, I can say that I am concerned about some of the changes being called for. Still though, the article that was posted is not entirely accurate, and seems to be stretching the boundaries of truth to make the story more appealing.

The comment about the slave trade is a prime example. The vocabulary term "Triangular Trade" actually did include slavery. By placing the issue of slavery inside the larger Atlantic triangular trade, we get to analyze the role of mercantilism and get into deeper discussions about slavery...not just the "slavery was bad" stuff. There is still plenty of discussion concerning the great work of abolitionists during the Antebellum era and the evils of slavery.

I took a look today at the latest and greatest proposed changes, and can tell you that the only people crying to high heaven were the teachers who worship all things liberal and refuse to teach a balanced approach to the students. Sure there are some blatantly obvious right wing changes that concern us all, but on the whole we, as professionals, will still supplement our instruction to provide a balanced education for our students.

And "Athiest sues Christian" yielded 3,020,000 results. :D

Nice comeback. Google this and get results. Yes, a lot of wienies are suit-happy, I'll give you that.


But you seem to have forgotten the Church and State thing.

Hmm, only 128,000 results... not sure what you're getting at Steve.:hmmm:

:rotfl2:

Again, how do you intend upon addressing the very first flaw in your argument?

Not over here they are not. That is one of those myths that really irritates me.