Jacquie Sullivan must have been asleep during American history class when the teacher covered the 16th and 17th century.
If she had been listening she would have learned that the early settlers wanted to create a government based on the
Greek democratic system rather than  the theocratic systems that were in place in Europe and Great Britian. 

Our founding fathers specifically wrote the clause "separation of church and state" to insure that we would never
have to pledge our allegiance to any religious leader (or his church) in order to escape persecution or banishment.
Since we now have the name "God" on one of our publically funded buildings, isn't it conceivable that we will next be required to  pledge allegiance to  "God" in order to receive equal treatment under the law.  What happens to the athiests in this country if that should happen.
Would they have to make a choice between conscience or equal treatment?  Would any Christians care about their plight?

Isn't it enough that we (believers and nonbelievers alike) are forced to pay extra taxes to take up the slack for the tax breaks that are given to churches in America. 

Audrey

Those sound like words of wisdom, but I'm not sure I can trust them :)

About the only thing worse than emotionally-driven, whiny liberal irrationalists are flag-waving,  protestant Xtians who like think there exists some Big Daddy Republican pulling the strings behind  nature,science, politics and Reality itself.

I didn't see a reference to the George Carlin list in the TOU.  Do you have a link to to it so I can familiarize myself with it?

.

BTW - I don't dislike people because they are christian.  I dislike people because they think they are superior to the rest of us, and they impose their own religious views onto the rest of us.  I thank you in advance for not misrepresenting my position on the subject in the future.

>>>for the record priests are part of Catholicism. And most parts of Catholicism completely differ from what Christians believe.

.

--->We already know you are an intolerant bigot TylerCThompson.  We knew that the moment you first posted in here.  We know you and your religion are superior to us and ours....  So there's no need to remind us of that again.....  Why don't you and your abortion clinic bombing friends impose your religion on someone else today...   I don't think I'll be having any today thank you...

.

I hope that post wasn't too obscene for Steve.  I would truly hate to upset Steve.

Ah, I see.  If I understand correctly, you (Tyler) see God in the political process in a providential sense -- that whatever takes place politically, God has a reason for it.  Am I understanding that correctly?

That does square well with one of the Bible's more difficult passages, Romans 13.  And it makes for a very reverential understanding of "In God We Trust."

It's just too bad that "trusting God in the political process" means so many things to different people.  We secular folk have come to take it to mean "we will use the political process to force you to follow the teachings of our God."  Unfortunately, we are often correct.

Make it clear that you're talking about something else (as you seem to have done), and you'll see some of the walls between people come down.

God, under this new blog format, now requires me to have a minimum of four typoes.  That's His New Inviolable Rule.  I think I have fixed them all.

>>>What does "trusting God in the political process" mean to you?

.

---->The question cannot be answered because there is no god...  Unless you're refering to me, and in that case, by all means...  Trust got in the political process!

Goat 3:5-6

Trust in TylercThompsons god to ensure priests molest young boys, that good christians kill filthy muslims and dirty jews, and young girls trying get abortions.

What does "trusting God in the political process" mean to you?

Or to ask it differently, what would take place differently if we trusted God in the political process?

Anny, BTW, the disproof of what you just wrote is forthcoming next month.

It's the annual See You At The Pole prayer meeting, that takes place the third Wednesday of each September at the school flagpole.  More info at: http://www.syatp.com .  Guess what; nobody's going to try to stop them.

Every civil liberties group agrees that the SYATP meetings are perfectly legal and Constitutionally protected.  In fact, in years past, the ACLU has offered to represent any student group denied the right to hold a SYATP meeting.

Stumbled back into this blog to find mocus1's jealousy over my car and dog inspired him with visions of beastiality, etc. But it always makes my day to be labeled a liberal or a conservative or a democrat or a republican, so I can only thank him for that. I've actually stood up for mocus1 more than once in these blogs, but can't blame him not finding those grains of sand on the vast beach. My car does get very bad mileage, though, and only runs on premium. However, since I put less than 1,500 miles a year on the odometer, I consider gay-looking hybrids "gas-guzzlers". The Vizsla sitting in front of me and the 67 mustang is "Bogey". He's 10 years old and , such a sweetheart, would even lick mocus1.

.

OK, back to the topic. I'm still wondering what's the problem people have with the banner unfurled at the "In God We Trust" rally. Can't we all get behind "No to women-hating, anti-gay Christian facist theocracy"? Or do the "Yes" people, and you know there were undoubtably some there, get to have it their way?       &nb sp; 

>>>Currently, Christian groups are being excluded from school grounds, along with prayer, during recess and during lunch
.
--->That is mis-information.  The Supreme Court ruled to protect a students religious expressions at school.  Students are allowed to self-organize to have to have organized religious expression, as well as individual personal expression.  What cannot happen legally is expression that is organized by, instigated by, or endorsed by the school.
.
If what you are saying is true, one of two things exists...
.
1.  Prohibiting the activities you're referring to is illegal.  Contact Jay Sekulow <http://www.aclj.org/> ASAP.  He is an attorney funded by religious groups that litigates these matters.  He would really like to hear from you.
.
2.  The activites that have been prohibited at school were organized in a way that makes them illegal under the supreme court decision described above.  There is nothing wrong or illegal with students organizing theirselves to participate in religious expression at school.  Search google for "see you at the pole" and you'll see students all over the country that hold prayer meetings and bible studies at school every day.
.
>>> Here was a rally that was not threatening anyone; if someone was opposed to the views and ideas being expressed hold your own at a different time.  Why must we try to censure through disruption and civil disobedience any groups right to speak and be heard?  
.
--->This is why.  If this were not a government activity, I would totally agree with you, but you don't see these protestors busting into churches and protesting, you don't see them at funerals (like those wacky christians protesting veterans funerals), you don't see them protesting christian rallys that have nothing to do with integrating government and religion.  The reason this rally was broken up/protested was because it involves our government, and when your government is running amok and violating your rights, you have an obligation to stand up and resist.  That's what Cindy Sheehan is doing (even though I don't agree with her message, I do agree with her right to do what she's doing), and that's exactly what happened the other night in Bakersfield.

Or when they complain how we're coming closer to majority acceptance of gay marriage, such people complain how America is "sliding into depravity."

Which is it, folks?

It's interesting how the Religious Right is capable of some really Grade AA Prime America-bashing (take Robert Bork's delusional tome Slouching Toward Gomorrah or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell telling America, on 9/13/2001, that we basically deserved the 9/11 attacks) -- yet when it comes to religion in government, they claim to be this overpowering majority.

This is probably the best place to insert this:

"High-tech museum brings creationism to life"

"Biblical account is taken as scientific gospel at $25 million Creation Museum"

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/141...

Man, I wish real scientists enjoyed that kind of money.

If you weren't anonymous, Anny, maybe I could identify the post you wrote from all those other anonymous posts out there.  Because as it stands, I'm not sure what post you have in mind.

Could you help me out a bit and give the date and time of the post you have in mind, so I could pick it out from the crowd?

In the meantime, if you're soliciting (or second-guessing) my opinion on the protesters taking the stage uninvited, I wrote elsewhere that I felt it was the wrong thing to do -- though I can understand the frustration they feel, being so under-represented anywhere in the media.  People are given to doing drastic, disruptive things when their voices aren't being heard or represented anywhere else.