experiencehttp://www.archives.gov/nat.../charters/constitution.html          nodecit~ from the United States government~ apparently the Constitution had many Fathers. (sorry ,hope this fixes the format)

Actually, Madison never said that.  He was in fact quite opposed to the intermingling of church and state.  As far as the reported Chief Justice Marshall quote- I am not certain one way or the other.   Here is an actual quote from Madison regarding the separation of church and state:

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (1819).

And since we are looking at the history of this great nation, here is some more;

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).

"How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment ." (Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches)

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?" (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)

"Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that neither the state nor nation, or both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separated." (Ulysses S. Grant)

"The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community." (James A. Garfield)

So I guess our founding fathers (and other important Americans) were liberals.  What exactly is a liberal?  Does favor of separation of church and state make one a liberal?  I oppose gun control, I am for the death penalty, I support our military, and I don't believe in god.  Yep, I must be a liberal!

I appreciate your chiming in here and proving me correct.

http://people.bakersfield.c...

When someone drags out the dictionary for the technical meaning of a word like "idiot" when their original intent was to insult, it tells ME that they are looking for a way to make it seem they meant no insult.  And I think YOU know what I mean.

If you, or anyone else, is going to insult someone at least be honest about it and don't try to later hide behind a dictionary and make up some phony "intent."   I have no clue what the reference to the Bible has to do with this but if it works in your mind..so be it.

The insults are bad enough on here but the smarmy attempt to twist the meaning to explain it away is ...well....smarmy.

After all..."I did not have sex with that woman" didn't work well for him either.

I should correct everything I have said, although Chico missed my point of not hating something that does not exist.  Chad Vegas' proposal is idiotic.  That was not fair to completely label him as an idiot.  Chico's assumption that I hate Chad Vegas was idiotic.  But to re-emphasize my initial intent; do christians hate Vishnu?  I don't know for sure because I am not a christian, but I would assume they do not because I would assume they do not believe Vishnu exists.  Do I hate god?  How can I hate god?  I do not believe the christian god or any god exists.  Do I hate the tooth fairy?  Do I hate santa claus?  Do I hate the easter bunny?  Give me a break Chico, et al.  Is it clear what my intentions were?  Not that Chad Vegas is an idiot, but the other part was my main point.  Geeezzz.

Okay, Roy -- I can see how you might have missed it.  It was couched in legal lingo, but he was also ridiculing the "so-called" incorporation doctrine.  If his legal theory had his way, the Second Amendment wouldn't protect you, either.

Let me ask you: why do you think this is a good idea?  Seriously.  I think it's such a dangerous idea that large areas of the US would turn into sectarian Iraq or Afghanistan overnight if we adopted it.

I'm sincerely wondering what you see in it.

bnfl - I think Roysan might be using a line from the early days of Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update."  Dan Akroyd used to forcefully say that to Jane Curtain ("Jane, you ignorant slut!") to point out she was wrong about something she'd just *reported* in the weekend news.  It's not particularly funny in this context, though.

"They yell and they're hostile"

Interesting.  As a World Can't Waiter who was actually at the meeting with Jared Thomas, I can attest to the fact that we were completely quiet during the entire portion of ther meeting that we stayed for.  No cat calls, no boos, nothing.  And as far as I know, this was our only time being in the same vicinity as him.  Even before the meeting, we were rather quiet in the parking lot far from the entrance of the h igh school headquarters.  Besides interviews with the press, I can't remember saying anything.  No chants, no agitations. 

Interestingly, he had made the local talk show circuit that morning, and plenty was said about the press release we sent out.  I actually had to pull it out to see if we had actually said the things we claimed to have.  Nope.  Some major deceptions.  On both the Jaz McKay and Inga Barks shows, both hosts claimed we charged Vegas with leading the campaign to install the teaching of "Intelligent Design" into the Frazier Park School.  What we actually said was he only commented about it.  "Around the debate over teaching "Intelligent Design" in Frazier Park, he denounced evolution - upheld by the scientific community as rigorously verified truth - as "nonsense" and said that "teaching nonsense is a discredit to our district."  Interesting in light of his denials on the talk shows, he upheld his belief that the earth was created in 5 days and that teaching science was a waste of time (with Inga Barks adding that students might as well as be playing with playdough than be taught evolution).  He even added that he wouldn't bring up the teaching of "creation science" but only because he doesn't currently have the votes.

Much was made of us calling him a fascist.  McKay even wewnt as far as to say we were calling for Nuremburg trials for Vegas and his ilk (nothing was ever stated about that).  What we actually said was "he and his cohorts work to make the schools pliant to the will of an increasingly powerful (and fascist) right wing, to restrict the exercise of free expression, and limit severely what can be taught."  Oddly, for a host such as McKay to come to Vegas' rescue over the use of the word fascist, he (McKay) rather revealed that much of what we said is accurate, given his opinion that we are the most dangerous people in this country (he conceded Al Queda is more dangerous worldwide).  According to McKay (joining in with Vegas' POV), we were commie hippies who, if he ran the country, would be shipped off to Guantanamo. 

I'm sorry, but the view of The World Can't Wait is that it is a form of fascism when people are pressured and threatened into a narrowly defined viewpoint of what makes a citizen.  People won't dare speak out due to fear of being seen as unpatriotic.  This can already be observed by Vegas' recent interview in the Californian where he "would be hard pressed to come to the conclusion that a group of men who have been elected and sworn to uphold the Constitution would vote against posting it. If that's the kind of elected officials they are, people need to rethink whether or not those are the kinds of men that they want in office -- the kind of men that don't even support the constitution they're sworn to uphold being taught to the students".

As the World Can't Wait's call says:  "Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule."

Robb wrote, "I believe this is why the Vegases drop the God-hate bomb first."

I was thinking along the lines of something similar.

Those of us who pay attention to the activities of political movements we oppose "know what they are up to."  Trouble is, when the opposing side pulls something outrageous, anyone who isn't a political junkie (and that's most people, folks) don't understand what all the rage is about.  All they see and hear is the rage, and those who are outraged are simply seen as ragers.

Yeah, I think that's why the Chads of the world drop the first bombs -- they know that most people will see the rage -- and only the rage -- of the opponents. 

(That's why I jump all over people who make the "liberal media" claim -- if there were such a thing, there would be voices in the media explaining "what they're up to.")

But without that media voice, explaining "what they're up to" convincingly is difficult because it's so utterly unbelievable.  I'll stop short of Godwinning the thread, but history buffs can come up with another example of something that was so unbelievable that it was difficult to convince many people of its reality.

That's why I have devoted particular effort to analyzing and chronicling this movement in their own words.  That way, when they say something that unbelievable, I can say "here, read this."

I believe many conservative Christians, myself included, can be overly invested in wanting to change people, to shape them into our own images. 

The majority of Christians are everyday people who are "believers." My mom and my aunt and uncle are Christians, but they don't go around trying to convert others. They just live their own lives. It's that smaller percentage of Christians who go around saying "praise God" every fifteen seconds and trying to coerce others into doing things their way (not necessarily the Bible's way) that so often give Christians a bad name. Those "Christians" who don't have all of their chairs pulled up to the table - like this Vegas character - should be ostracized. Don't even waste your breath praying for them.

Vegas is an idiot. I can't speak for all- but I consider myself an atheist and I don't understand how I can hate something I don't believe in.

Then you believe in Vegas? You obviously hate him. He's not an idiot, he's a politician evoking reactions just like those on "your side" do.

To call him an idiot denotes hatred of him, and since you say you cannot hate somethin you don't believe in, you must believe in him.

If you say you "don't hate him" or just "pity" him or some such tripe you are being disingenuous.

Maybe you just need your "load towed"!

BTW, let me add...

Last month I was down in L.A., and I saw a billboard for a progressive (left-wing) radio station.  So, I turned it on.

I listened to that and thought to myself, "gee, I didn't know I was that conservative."

Or maybe I did, but it's been so long that I've actually been in a position to be irritated by the other side that I forgot.

Roy, of course I acknowledge what you say is true.  I just talk about one side's hate more because that side's hate is more likely to adversely affect me personally at this point in time.  It's human nature.  Imperfect, but still nature.

If we had Tipper Gore for President and Democratic majorities in Congress, and the ascendant worldview of the Democratic leadership resembled Andrea Dworkin, you'd hear me warn of the dangers of radical feminism -- and it isn't pretty.

Heck, if that were the case, and the Republican Party went back to its roots, I'd consider joining the Abernathy Machine.

Chad you ignorant slut!

When I attended Golden State Jr. High, I remember from Government class, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People of the United States" is more inclusive for all Americans!

Vegas is an idiot. I can't speak for all- but I consider myself an atheist and I don't understand how I can hate something I don't believe in.  I just don't have a make-believe "father" to blame all my problems on, or complain to about my problems.  Everything that happens in my life is usually a result of something I have done- good or bad.

Chad has written elsewhere that state governments shouldn't be required to respect the Bill of Rights.  The reason for arguing such a position is to ram religion down people's throats by law -- the specific argument is that the 14th Amendment wasn't meant to enforce the Bill of Rights upon the states (wrong), leaving states free to legally establish official religions and force people by law to live by the rules of the official government religion.

I've taken a grand total of one semester of Constitutional Law, and Chad is so far off base, he isn't even in the ballpark. He's three or four miles down the road, looking at the map for directions...