Hello Daniel!

05 Jan 08 20:02, you wrote to me:

 >> Doesnt mean non-existent words in the constitution are in force.

 DP> I follow the meanings of the words to their conclusion.

I dont think so..

 >> They have had Chaplains forever and a day.

 DP> I know.

No you didnt.

 >> In 2005, The Chaplain was paid a salary of 40k a year.
 >>
 >> You got a long road to how to get this shit changed...

 DP> It's a long road to get a lot of things changed.  It took a war to end
 DP> slavery.

So you advocate war to keep the evil "christians" away?

Radis atheism isnt a healthy profession, its only leads to obsession.

 >> Its an issue for me, but its not as big of one, because I know
 >> people like yourself are suffering from irrational fear.

 DP> Until it affects you personally, of course.

What has happened so far that has affected me personally?

 >> I dont see it as a federal issue, I see more of it on the state and
 >> local levels, and since our blue laws have begun to dissolve, I
 >> have worried about it less and less.

 DP> It's being invoked at the federal level.  The federal government is
 DP> interfering more and more with our rights.

I will agree that some of the stuff since 9-11 is highly suspect, but other
than that, name them?

 DP>   That said, states will
 DP> likely do the same thing if the federal government doesn't do it for
 DP> them.  But, with a smaller federal government, local people would
 DP> likely have more control over their own lives.

Now how are we going to have a smaller Federal govt, when people like you
want national health care, welfare and the ilk?

 >> Like when a Federal Court ordered the Chief Justice of the Alabama
 >> Supreme Court to take the monument of the 10 commandments down?
 >>
 >> Notice how his defiance cost him his career?

 DP> Yes, because the position was absolutely indefensible.  However, it
 DP> took a pissed off person to file the lawsuit to get it done.  If
 DP> everyone was like you, it wouldn't have happened and the Justice
 DP> would've been able to continue with his propaganda.

Then the system worked!

 >> Since I am technically on the same side as you in the "belief"
 >> dept, how am I being oppressed?

 DP> Oppressed with regard to what?  The 10 Commandments?  They aren't
 DP> laws.  Only a handful of them even are.  By placing them in the
 DP> courthouse, the court is giving the impression that it considers them
 DP> to be important, and that people who live in contrast to them (but not
 DP> to the law) may be punished differently, regardless of whether or not
 DP> you're religious.

and they are in the USSC,,, haha squirm why dont you?

 >> The sky is falling...  Chicken Little

 DP> As I said before.  You've made it very clear that you don't care, and
 DP> you don't perceive the problem.  That's fine and your decision.

I would rather have a concern based on a rational belief, not irrational nonsense.

 >> As long as politicians have to spend thousands if not millions of
 >> dollars to get elected or have to pander to specific demographics,
 >> our govt will never be based on reality, dont blame this phenomena
 >> on religion.
 >>
 >> Religion is just another demographic in this context as are people
 >> like you.

 DP> Other things have a basis in reality, though.  Yes, they're going to
 DP> pander to different people to get money.

and votes!!!

 DP>   That's something inherently
 DP> wrong with the system.  However, at least it's something that's up
 DP> front and debatable, unlike religion.

Everyone gets pandered to, even you will want to buy into someones spiel,
even if they are unable to act on any promises made.

 DP> I'm not anything special except that I don't want other people's
 DP> religious views, without any basis in reality, being imposed on me.  I
 DP> don't really see why that's so much to ask.

Please list the ways they are being imposed on you and also list the ways
you might be doing the same exact thing?

 >> This doesnt require the redefining of marriage.
 >> Same sex couples can have their own designation, call them civil
 >> unions.

 DP> Separate but equal, right?  I think we've been down that path, and it
 DP> doesn't work.  What should happen is that marriage == religious, civil
 DP> union == government.

A marriage between a man and a man or a woman between a woman is not the
same thing as a marriage between and man and a woman.

You can still have your cake, just dont fuck with redefining something.

 DP>   The government legalization/recognition of ALL
 DP> relationships should be civil unions.  Marriages are what you get from
 DP> a church, and have nothing to do with government or legal recognition
 DP> of relationships.

Ever hear of a marriage license?

The whole issue has more to do with being able to able to have the same sex
partner benifit from having common property willed to them, medical
benifits and the ilk, civil unions allow this.

In your world, a marriage between 2 men, who is the husband?

==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info
E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Blogs/Other Places: http://links.cassell.us
... WORK HARDER! Millions on welfare depend on it.
--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-30413