US Election (2012)

[foothead]

Lol true, but the main idea of my point would still hold true (for the most part) as they would never be able to get away with stoning people who steal a loaf of bread or selling people into slavery (in the current era anyways).

Lol. I cannot think of anyone who isn't supposed to be stoned according to the bible. Thank the FSM that the majority of Christians only read select quotes, and ignore the rest. Otherwise, I'd be dead ten times over by now.

As an aside, they have anti-sodomy laws here in Wisconsin and we're pretty much the opposite of Texas

Have you actually been to Texas? It's not as bad as most people seem to think. Well, the rural areas probably are, but the larger cities, especially Houston and Austin are quite accepting. Definitely much better than in Louisiana or Mississippi.

 

[superman22x]

Only Steers and Queers come from Texas.

 

[Celegorm]

Have you actually been to Texas? It's not as bad as most people seem to think. Well, the rural areas probably are, but the larger cities, especially Houston and Austin are quite accepting. Definitely much better than in Louisiana or Mississippi.

I have, I even have family who live about an hour outside of Huston. That was in response to them still having the sodomy laws on file. My point was to show that other places still have laws like that, and that Texas wasn't that different.

 

[foothead]

I have, I even have family who live about an hour outside of Huston. That was in response to them still having the sodomy laws on file. My point was to show that other places still have laws like that, and that Texas wasn't that different.

Oh, okay then. I totally misunderstood you.

To further your point...

 

[root]

Ron Paul isn't against the separation of church and state, he just has a different interpretation of it, which is probably more accurate to what the establishment clause was intended to mean. The point wasn't to completely eradicate religion from anything the government does, it was intended to prevent them from creating a state church, like England did. I mean, I don't like religion at all, and I think it has no place in today's society, but he's technically right there.

I thought that it was the other way around, not to keep politics out of religion, (which is what you;re saying with state setting up a church).

but to keep religion out of politics.
So for example laws are led by common sense, and morality (which may be based in religious teachings), but are not in themselves directly taken from the bible...

e.g. the bible says that sodomy is wrong, but that does not mean that it should be outlawed by the state, only outlawed by the church (their teaching/private club, their rules.)

though it's also a good idea to have things the other way around as well and stop the state telling the church that they have to change their views/scriptures.



with the healthcare thing, I saw something today that I guess if true sums up why so many people are against it.
it was a poster with the words, Obamacare: the efficiency of the postal service, the sustainability of social security, and all the compassion of the inland revenue.

certain irony that the the spell checker wants to change obamacare to macabre

 

[foothead]

I thought that it was the other way around, not to keep politics out of religion, (which is what you;re saying with state setting up a church).

but to keep religion out of politics.
So for example laws are led by common sense, and morality (which may be based in religious teachings), but are not in themselves directly taken from the bible...

e.g. the bible says that sodomy is wrong, but that does not mean that it should be outlawed by the state, only outlawed by the church (their teaching/private club, their rules.)

though it's also a good idea to have things the other way around as well and stop the state telling the church that they have to change their views/scriptures.

That as well, but what I've always understood is that the primary purpose of the establishment clause was to keep us from having a state church. Unfortunately, it's worded vaguely, so it's up to interpretation.

with the healthcare thing, I saw something today that I guess if true sums up why so many people are against it.
it was a poster with the words, Obamacare: the efficiency of the postal service, the sustainability of social security, and all the compassion of the inland revenue.

I've always felt that the postal service was reasonably efficient, definitely more so than any other branch of the US government. For 45 cents, they can take a package, transport it across the country, then deliver it to the recipient's house. They definitely need some restructuring lately because of declining use, but it's nothing like other government programs.

But otherwise, what you posted pretty much sums it up. Our government is pretty awful as of late, and the idea of them managing healthcare is somewhat terrifying.


Back to the original topic, why does everyone seem to want Chris Christie to run? He's horribly inexperienced and doesn't seem to have much to set him apart from the rest of the candidates.

 

[superman22x]

That as well, but what I've always understood is that the primary purpose of the establishment clause was to keep us from having a state church. Unfortunately, it's worded vaguely, so it's up to interpretation.



I've always felt that the postal service was reasonably efficient, definitely more so than any other branch of the US government. For 45 cents, they can take a package, transport it across the country, then deliver it to the recipient's house. They definitely need some restructuring lately because of declining use, but it's nothing like other government programs.

But otherwise, what you posted pretty much sums it up. Our government is pretty awful as of late, and the idea of them managing healthcare is somewhat terrifying.


Back to the original topic, why does everyone seem to want Chris Christie to run? He's horribly inexperienced and doesn't seem to have much to set him apart from the rest of the candidates.

The post office is a money pit. Losing tons of money and it's not going to stay around long unless they make some big changes.

The state does need a little control on churches though. There are groups that get away with some pretty bad stuff and the law can't do anything because of the seperation of church and state, so these Cults can do some nasty stuff...

 

[~Darkseeker~]

The post office is a money pit. Losing tons of money and it's not going to stay around long unless they make some big changes.

The state does need a little control on churches though. There are groups that get away with some pretty bad stuff and the law can't do anything because of the seperation of church and state, so these Cults can do some nasty stuff...

For Example

I think it would be simpler to outlaw homophobia, and thus outlaw these groups as is, Doing this in the UK would have a shitstorm of pro-gay people and politicians all over them.

 

[foothead]

The post office is a money pit. Losing tons of money and it's not going to stay around long unless they make some big changes.

I looked it up. Their deficit is $9 billion. Considering that they don't take in any tax money and they're trying to restructure, this really isn't too bad compared to other government programs. Besides, it looks like most of it was caused by them being overregulated by congress. They're required to put money aside for pensions of workers they haven't even hired yet...

The state does need a little control on churches though. There are groups that get away with some pretty bad stuff and the law can't do anything because of the seperation of church and state, so these Cults can do some nasty stuff...

Not exactly. What we've been talking about is the establishment clause, typically referred to as separation of church and state. What keeps the government from interfering with religions is actually the free exercise clause, typically referred to as freedom of religion. They're two entirely different ideas.

For Example

I think it would be simpler to outlaw homophobia, and thus outlaw these groups as is, Doing this in the UK would have a shitstorm of pro-gay people and politicians all over them.

And how would that work? Ignoring the fact that doing such a thing would basically need a complete rewrite of the bill of rights, do you really think it's a good idea to institute thought crime? Because that's exactly what it would be.


Besides, as much as I hate the Westboro Baptist church, I still can't help but feel that they're actually helping gay rights. Usually, the easiest way to get people to align themselves with another group is to give them a common enemy. People won't want to be associated with them, so they'll rethink their positions.