We understand that you can't help being mentally challenged Jean, and we're not as judgemental as theists.  I also think you're pretty funny, sometimes intentionally and sometimes inadvertently.  

 I'm glad you feel the love Jean.  Thanks for the appreciation for not banning you.  While many people here find you annoying I think you provide us with a valuable service.  Thanks for spending your time here.

After having hung out with a sociopath myself for a little while, I think he's actually being sincere in being happy at not being banned. Even sociopaths get lonely sometimes.

I still think you should try your shtick on a theist forum as well.

Just to see what happens.

I devil dog dare you.

In all honesty, if being a prick was reason enough to ban someone this would be a very lonely forum.

Yeah, it is nice to have a forum where you can say almost anything without fear of being banned. GO FREE SPEECH! Even for Jean.

Haha, totally.

Yes you do, which is why people like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and any sane person rejected your biblical literalism.

If our country were run by people like you we would look like Iran.

See : Free Will

According to you "Free will is not the absence of choice".

You are free to go fuck yourself, yet you choose not to.

Why are you not free, Jean Jean?

Why are the chains that bind you so?

Why are you so weak, when so many around you are so strong?

Why are you so angry to see so many indulge in their liberty?

Why are you so weak, miserable and inferior?

Why can't you let go of your fears?

Jean, it is probably because you do 'represent Christianity' so consistently that you got kicked off.

You show what working out the implications of fundamental Christianity, of basing one's world view on Scripture, lead to, and it isn't pretty, or coherent with reality.

Even 'Christians' can see that your views are f**ked-up, as long as they haven't drunk the Kool Aid to the extent that their moral and rational faculties have been totally perverted, as yours seem to have been.

You are the Reductio Ad Absurdum disproof of Christianity.

AND LONG BEFORE the right wing stacked deck of THAT Supreme Court{assuming your word in face lack of  citation), THE FOUNDERS WROTE THE LAW, DURING THE TIME OF THE FOUNDERS, RIGHT AFTER THE INK WAS DRY ON THE CONSTITUTION, WROTE THE TREATY OF TRIPOLY,

Article 11 "As the government of the United States Of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" SIGNED BY PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER JOHN ADAMS, JUNE 10TH 1797

The law you allegedly quote was written over 100 years AFTER our congress RIGHT AFTER the war wrote a LAW stating that America's government was not Jesus owned.

OTHERWISE WHY "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" in the oath of office in OUR Constitution?

Our Supreme Court also upheld slavery rights and women not being able to vote rights, until later courts over turned them.

You advocate a revisionist history where the founders only wanted Christians ruling our country.

IF that is what they wanted they should have stated that clearly that only Christians BY NAME OF THE WORD CHRISTIAN can hold office.

They did not do that. They went out of their way in the First Amendment and the oath of office to avoid the very bullshit tribal crap that plagues the middle east today. The very shit that caused an entire congress BACK THEN to tell Muslims that America was not a government owned by Jesus.

Freedom of religion to you is the same thing that freedom of religion to Muslims in the east is. "Freedom to be the alpha male with no competition"

The founders were against all forms of monopolies. Something you are too fucking dense to accept.

I totally support free speech rights!

Even for silly fools.

Have you now ? Liars go to hell, you know.

Link, please ?

Show min IN the United States Constitution the words "Jesus" and or "Christianity", as a mandate to be a citizen or a mandate to hold office?

NOT THERE, you lose.

Did you read a damned thing I posted about his quotes. He, unlike you, knew how to separate his personal views FROM  the government we live under. He valued questioning. He said it was ok to question even the existence of god. He demanded a "wall" between church and state.

He, unlike you, would see me, not as someone to take a back seat to him, but an equal citizen.

I do not owe your god or any god an oath to be a citizen. "No religious test".

I don't need your fucking god and Jefferson would bitch slap your pathetic ass for your theocratic projection.

Go look up the Virgina Religious Freedom Act Jefferson wrote. It became the prototype for the First Amendment.

Freedom of religion is not an entitlement to a monopoly of power dip shit. A Christian monopoly of power is called a THEOCRACY, which is a religious form of fascism DIP SHIT!

No religion has a monopoly on our Constitution or the laws we live under. PERIOD. You do not own me and I am not the property of any god.

If you want to see your self as a thing rather than an independent mind, so be it, but I'll be damned if I am goin to allow you to spread lies about the founders or what the Constitution means.

You are just a whiny brat who cannot stand that other people don't buy your zombie god claim.

Hell, he lies in every post...

The First Amendment trumps whatever butthurt bullshit you spew.

Deal with it.

Jean, since your context is the fantasy world of a Biblical God, your comments are irrelevant to anyone concerned with what actually pertains.

How do you go from "a wall of separation between Church & State. " to "Separation FROM Church and State." which is not even a coherent statement.

Separation of what or whom from both Church and State??

With every post your credibility diminishes, and our concern for your mental stability grows.

Given my experience in college, I'd be lying if I didn't say I was concerned that he actually might be a 'Professor' in real life...

False

I did not assume you meant it as a direct quote, I just don't see what your "translated" phrase even means. What third party is to be kept separate from BOTH Church AND State? The 'people'?

You know damned well that is a bunch of hypocritical bullshit.

When you say "religions can mess with government", what you mean is "My version of Christianity has a right to a monopoly of our government". THAT is what you really mean.

Jefferson and ALL the founders put the First Amendment in place to prevent all forms of monopolies of power on issues of speech and religion and press and assembly.

Your Christianity DOES NOT, nor has have ever had a monopoly on our Constitution or oovernment. PERIOD!

"No religious test" UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

"As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", Article 11 Barbary Treaty signed WITHOUT DISSENT by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President John Adams June 10th 1797

NOW, if you are going to insist that religion CAN mess with government, then that would mean ANY religion can because there is no mandate that says only Christians can "mess with government".

You are confusing citizen participation  in government, which is EVERYONE'S RIGHT, and replacing it with your theocratic back of the bus attitude which the founders did not want.

If our government was only to be run by Christians, then tell me why Thomas Jefferson WHOM YOU CALLED A PAGAN, was our president? Tell me why Joe Lieberman a Jew serves in our congress. Tell me why Keith Elleson A Muslim serves in our Congress. Tell me why Pete Stark an atheist serves in our congress.

BECAUSE YOU ARE DEAD WRONG, Christians have never owned the rights to the drivers seat and must, like every citizen, compete to get those offices. You are the one who falsely assumes an entitlement program.

Christians do not own our Constitution, there is no litmus test to be an American other than being born here or naturalized citizen.

If ANYONE, atheist, Jew, Muslim Asian, black, gay, wants to run for office, and convinces enough people to vote for them, and the meet the age requirements and are born here or naturalized, and they win enough votes, they have legally won that office. No one owes your zombie god an oath to hold public office.

NO RELIGIOUS TEST    YOU LOSE IDIOT!

Brian,

Of COURSE religions can mess with government. If the majority of voters are Christian, they can put their religious-based ideas into law... provided those laws are written without reference to religion.

All sorts of churches print voter guides - quasi-legally or sometimes illegally. They preach politics from their pulpits at times. Of course, according to IRS rules, they lose their tax-exempt status if they so politic, but someone has to complain and to report it.

I've considered going to "visit" some of these churches I suspect of politicking, write down what was said by whom and under what circumstances, and report it. If no one reports it, nothing will change. If someone does report it, they might have to fear for their physical safety.

We are a Christian nation, as the majority identify with some sect of Christianity or other - even if they haven't been to church or opened a Bible for years. As the Constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli, the founding fathers all said, this is not a Christian State.

Realisticly though, do you really think that an atheist, a Pagan, a Buddhist, a Muslim could be elected? The US seems to be becoming more religious - and Protestant fundamentalist: Do you really think that JFK being a Roman Catholic could be elected today because of his faith? In fact, could Richard Nixon, with his dubious ties to the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) be elected today because of his faith?

And they can be overturned, when they're found to be unconstitutional.

No that has always been incorrect. It has always been a multicultural nation. Did you think the Native American Indians became extinct? Do you think that heretics and skeptics were never here?

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth."  : Barack Obama - 44th President of the United States of America

Obama is no fool. He knows that this soundbite will be a significant statement and paradigm, moving into the future. Just like the groundwork that was set by the forefathers of the US, before him, set the paradigm that one day would mean that a woman and black person could become President.

He's planted a very significant seed, about 'non believers' being part of the 'fabric' of the nation. That's a radical acknowledgment.

An atheist?

Yes.

Easily.

I don't see that among the more educated and socially aware of the current and upcoming generations. No.

I see older hard core fundies getting desperate to make their presence known and felt, and sympathized with.

But, I think they are fighting an uphill battle.

Secular laws, and the constitution are powerful paradigms for civil rights of individuals.

If anyone in power were to try and overturn civil rights and freedom of choice, and moved towards a 'police state', or a 'theocracy', there would be hell to pay for that move.

Don't kid yourself.

BethK wrote: Brian, Of COURSE religions can mess with government. If the majority of voters are Christian, they can put their religious-based ideas into law... provided those laws are written without reference to religion. RedneF wrote: And they can be overturned, when they're found to be unconstitutional.

IF they are unconstitutional. Some of the morals/ethics/rules extant within Christianity are really Humanistic principles or laws that are required for any orderly society to operate. For instance, just because they have a commandment "Thou shall not bear false witness." does not make the laws against perjury unconstitutional.

BethK wrote: We are a Christian nation, as the majority identify with some sect of Christianity or other

RedneF wrote:
No that has always been incorrect. It has always been a multicultural nation. Did you think the Native American Indians became extinct? Do you think that heretics and skeptics were never here?

We are multicultural. But, we are a Christian nation because the plurality identifies with Christianity. Until recently, I lived on a Native American reservation. I am quite aware that they are not extinct. Many of them also identify as Christian, but many others practice their Native beliefs.

We are clearly NOT a Christian State, even though there are many who would have it that way for their own reasons. They can't change that without overturning the first amendment - which COULD be done. Too few seem to know what it is well enough to challenge them when they say that the "wall of separation" does not exist, or only prohibits the government from meddling in church affairs. People need to read, know, and study the Constitution, which appears to be lacking.

Still, Oklahoma's marriage laws are specifically written so that a lawful marriage may only be performed by a judge, a retired judge, a minister of the gospel, or a rabbi (apparently an afterthought). No mention of a Native American ceremony, tribal elder, nondenominational minister (who does not push the gospel), Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and so forth.

Specifically 2006 Oklahoma Code - Title 43. — Marriage and Family

§43-7. Solemnization of marriages.

A. All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.

Now, the law appears to be enforced in the breach. Many people have been married in Oklahoma by people with ministerial ordinations from such organizations as the Universal Life Church ( http://www.ulc.org/ ) which ordains anybody regardless of beliefs. You too can get ordained online right now. In most states, such an officiant is permissible.

For myself, I didn't want the legal status of my marriage called into question at a time of crisis. So, my husband and I took our money and got married in Colorado - which only requires two literate witnesses.

Other things are being enacted which are clearly unconstitutional, including a Christian community center which is being funded with tax money. Even the freethinker nor the native American communities saw nothing wrong with this one! Not until membership forms came out in which you had to state you were a Christian to be a member. And the promised "no fees for taxpayers" turned out to be a false promise. I no longer have any standing to bring suit there myself.

As far as that no atheist/freethinker/nonchristian could be elected with MY attitudes, I cast my votes for the best candidate. I would take religion or its lack, and the emphasis put on it into account whether the person would represent me and adequately do the job for which they are running.

Yes, I would certainly vote for an atheist candidate. Heck, I may BE an atheist candidate for a local office in 2012!

There is no benefit in casting one's ballot for the candidate believed most likely to win. That puts the choice solely in the hands of those taking polls and reporting them. Even if, or especially if, you believe the best candidate is unlikely to win, certainly be sure to cast your vote in that case. You, and others like you, may swing the election and prove the pollsters and reporters wrong.

RedneF wrote: "For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth."  : Barack Obama - 44th President of the United States of America   Obama is no fool. He knows that this soundbite will be a significant statement and paradigm, moving into the future. Just like the groundwork that was set by the forefathers of the US, before him, set the paradigm that one day would mean that a woman and black person could become President. He's planted a very significant seed, about 'non believers' being part of the 'fabric' of the nation. That's a radical acknowledgment.

Obama is no fool, and his statement will move the US into the future. I still also remember, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." George H.W. Bush, August 27, 1987 That also created the current climate. Hopefully, Obama's statement will come to supersede it. Pendulums swing...

BethK wrote:   The US seems to be becoming more religious

RedneF wrote:
I don't see that among the more educated and socially aware of the current and upcoming generations. No.
I see older hard core fundies getting desperate to make their presence known and felt, and sympathized with.

I have had PLENTY of twenty-something, college-educated engineers I've worked with go blathering about fundamentalism and turning discussions about engineering questions into religious ones (somehow). And, teaching their little children these things - including some inappropriate specifics of the "wrongness" of homosexuality.

Perhaps "socially aware" people, but those exist in all age groups.

Brian37 wrote: And writing a law down on paper doesn't make it constitutional. Did you ever consider the "church voting guides" simply have not been challenged. Preachers are NOT allowed to tell their church whom to vote for in the pulpit.

That's what I wrote. Church voting guides violate IRS rules and put their tax exemption at severe risk. They are challenged. It takes not one, but several witnesses to what is said from the pulpit, or someone to go to such a church and get such a printed voting guide and to report it. Many cases are thrown out for lack of evidence. Some do get challenged. Some churches lose their tax exempt status, and become categorized as PACs.

When The Landmark Church in New York placed anti-Clinton ads in the local paper (4 days before the election of 1992), it broke the law. In May of 2000, after a much-appealed court battle, Landmark became the first church in the U.S. to lose its tax exempt status for violating federal IRS regulations. Other churches have had similar issues brought up, or proposed. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-08-antiwar-sermon_x.htm http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6100888 http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/04/09/gay-bashing-church-could-lose-tax-exemption/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/18/politics/uwire/main4613144.shtml

IRS Publication 1828 (Tax guide for churches and religious organizations) discusses at length what types of politicking churches are and are not allowed to do with their tax exempt status.

That is exactly why atheists really need to be more verbal and proactive.

I remember reading somewhere that George W Bush was babbling about going to fight Gog and Magog from the book of Ezekiel, in Afghanistan, or something like that.

That's just completely batshit crazy.

Like I said, I have no doubt that Obama deliberately made a point to mention that 'non believers' are part of the fabric of the US.