The mere mention of God is not an endorsement of any religion, Martin. It's just a mention of something that the majority of Americans believe in. Let me ask you this...if I offered you a free $100 bill, which plainly has "In God We Trust" marked on it, would you be SO enthusiastic about making the government secular, that in protest, you'd turn it down? I'm guessing your convictions don't go THAT far. How is it "propaganda" if it's about something you don't believe exists to begin with? I mean, if you know better, then why should it bother you?
Don't be obtuse. People have a right to go to a restaurant, but they have little to no control over where they sit depending on how crowded the place is. If there are two rooms for smokers and non-smokers, that is fine, but a single-room restaurant deprives patrons of the opportunity to avoid a smoker, therefore the patron with the annoying habit must go elsewhere to smoke, not the ordinary diner.
who are you to tell restaurants what they do? if you dont like it you dont have to eat there. but no, people like you like to use the tyrannical power of the government to get their way.
huh? of course it is religion, the 10 commandments are specifically religious, and even mentions of god are clearly religious. where is the scientific literature that says there is a god? it is theism! i am not a theist. its mostly a symbolic issue. it doesnt matter much. like i said before, the only thing that even really annoys me is the "god" they make kids say in the pledge. mostly i dont care personally, bhut i would p[refer you dont force your theism down my kid's throat (when i have kids). because children are being told we are a nation "under god". we are not. also, a completely different issue is that when we take military action overseas, i do not want crazy muslims to be even slightly justified when they say we are on a "crusade". we are supposed to be secular, lets act like it. i dont care what % of our people are believers.
That's what YOU believe, Martin. That comes across to me like you're trying to force your non-faith down everybody else's throats. Why should your beliefs take precedence over mine or anybody else's?
pay attention very closely. read slowly: i do not advocate a pledge of allegiance that says we are a nation "under no god, since god doesnt exist". if i wanted to force my beliefs on you, that is what i would say. i am not forcing anything on anyone. all i am asking is that the government doesnt not indoctrinate children with theism. read this next sentence twice because you dont seem to get it. i do not want the government to indoctrinate anyone with atheism either. all i want is the government to not "respect an establishment of religion" like the constitution says. do you understand? i advocate removing ALL references to belief OR non-belief. i advocate removing ALL references to belief OR non-belief. get it? if you were a teacher, and you printed prayers on the backs of the tests you passed out to students, and i asked they you just leave the prayers off and leave the backs of the tests blank, am i forcing my beliefs down your throat? why are you being so stupid?
Hey Martin, I'm not here to get into a pissing contest with you, OK? No need to get all snippy just because you can't argue your way around this one. It's a circular argument, so neither one of us can win, regardless of what you may think. My position is that by stopping this man from expressing his beliefs by wearing the 10 Commandments or the cross, or the Star of David, or the crescent moon or whatever, you are IMPLICITLY forcing your beliefs on him. What he's doing isn't hurting anybody but you, and it's only hurting you because you let it hurt you. You're normally a pretty logical guy, so I would think that you, of all people, would understand that concept.
please, i can easily argue my way around this one. i am a crushing argument dominator. if i was forcing my beliefs on him, he would be forced to wear "jesus sucks" on his robe. you seem to be unable to understand that i am not forcing my beliefs on anyone by restricting them from using their position in my government to advance their beliefs. judges robe's are uniforms for agents of the public justice system, not billboards for advancement of wizardry. it isnt hurting me, it is just not approriate. why not just let the guy sell space on his robe. he could put "eat mcdonalds delicious cheeseburgers " on there. then when burger king complained, you could accuse burger king of forcing their cheeseburgers on everyone. everyone smart who read this has now taken my side. i win.
What nonsense. Your statement is absurd. Here is your position, in a nutshell: The judge who wears the 10 Commandments on his robe is not forcing his beliefs upon a captive courtroom audience. The Constitution which tells him he can't do that is forcing some sort of beliefs on the judge. What beliefs, exactly, is the Constitution forcing on the judge except that he has to abide by the law? On the other hand, the judge is forcing his CHRISTIAN beliefs down the throat of anybody who sits in his courtroom: the litigants, the jury, the bailiff, the clerk, the audience. The judge is an agent of the government. He has NO First Amendment FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The First Amendment protects CITIZENS, not persons acting in government roles. If you object to the ethics of that arrangement, write to your Congressman to try to get the First Amendment appealed. You're wrong again. What he's doing hurts EVERY American because he is actively working to destroy the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion. He even admits to it.
