13-10-2003 00:22									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Just googled it. Not nice. Very scary people.

	13-10-2003 01:29									#32
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

You googled "NAMBLA"? Oh man, you are now on the watch list of every law enforcement agency from Nome, Alaska to Hobart, Australia! NAMBLA is the acronym for the "North American Man Boy Love Association". You are now a suspected prevert, and every cop in the whole world is just aching to take you down. If I were you I would develop a case of severe incurable agoraphobia, and have a friend apply for disability for you. If you're lucky you might be able to stay home for the rest of your life. Otherwise, the moment you step outside you are fair game.

	13-10-2003 03:36									#33
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I can't wait to see if religions that do not conform to conservative religious dogma will be equally considered for government aid . . . . .

	13-10-2003 03:47									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove You googled "NAMBLA"? Oh man, you are now on the watch list of every law enforcement agency from Nome, Alaska to Hobart, Australia! NAMBLA is the acronym for the "North American Man Boy Love Association". You are now a suspected prevert, and every cop in the whole world is just aching to take you down. If I were you I would develop a case of severe incurable agoraphobia, and have a friend apply for disability for you. If you're lucky you might be able to stay home for the rest of your life. Otherwise, the moment you step outside you are fair game.

	13-10-2003 04:53									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by mrmitchell But what if the Church of NAMBLA does exactly that and makes the best showing (for axe murderers)? And it still gives them an excuse to sue.

If they channel funds into a group that actively promotes criminal activity, they're going to have a hard time defending themselves in court whether they're religious about it or no. Only the ACLU would bother sticking up for people that demented, and the ACLU defends people's right to be an obnoxious hindrance to society regardless of their belief system. The government itself isn't as utterly hogtied about religion as you seem to be making out. They let animal sacrifice slide, and you can use poisonous snakes provided only your moron concelebrants are within biting range, but AFAIK that's about as far as the issue can be pushed.
I wasn't really fighting for the law, anyway; I was just challenging a St. Leo allreligionsucks troll. The law itself seems fairly pointless one way or another.
As for discriminating against religious groups that don't fit the glove,
A. They have the Patriot Act(s) if they want to do that, and
B. I don't think Bush is eager to do anything else to make the Muslim world hate him. Anti-Jesus paranoia aside, the man is first and foremost a politician.

	13-10-2003 06:17									#36
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Oh crappola, here is the left complaining about church and state again

This wouldn't be a problem if Congress wasn't violating the constitution by using the treasury to "re-distribute" wealth which the left just loves. Yeah, if the Constitution is going to be ignored, only the left can ignore it. But by God, if Republicans want to ignore the Constitution, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

	13-10-2003 06:42									#37
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

First of all, the Government is in the business of making moral choices. That, of course, does not make them a Church. The Constitution does prevent them from establishing a religion. It does not prohibit them from funding charities that they, as the elected government, choose to find as beneficial to society. Furthermore, the government is not supporting the belief system of any church or its teaching, but rather they are supporting relief work that is usually delivered in an extremely cost effective way. Why would anyone want something different?

Now I am sure that a reply to this will try to bring up potential abuses, but before you do that tell me the government program that doesn't have potential for abuse. Just because it deals with religious organizations do people get their panties in a wad. The real issue is good programs being delivered to needy people in a cost effective way. So where is your real complaint?

edit:grammer

	13-10-2003 06:57									#38
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Oh crappola, here is the left complaining about church and state again This wouldn't be a problem if Congress wasn't violating the constitution by using the treasury to "re-distribute" wealth which the left just loves. Yeah, if the Constitution is going to be ignored, only the left can ignore it. But by God, if Republicans want to ignore the Constitution, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

I'm not trolling Republicans -- I am sincerely against any direct or indirect form of government sponsorship or endorsement of any religion.

	13-10-2003 07:11									#39
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun I'm not trolling Republicans -- I am sincerely against any direct or indirect form of government sponsorship or endorsement of any religion.

Are you against government sponsorship of charities? Does it matter who runs them as long as they are serving their purpose in a cost effective way? Simply because a church created a charity, it is ludicrous to say that "We won't support the socially beneficial work you do because Congress isn't supposed to establish a religion" Huh? That makes no sense. It boils down to people with an agenda against religion, not a constitutional mandate not to establish a religion.

	13-10-2003 07:15									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Are you against government sponsorship of charities? Does it matter who runs them as long as they are serving their purpose in a cost effective way? Simply because a church created a charity, it is ludicrous to say that "We won't support the socially beneficial work you do because Congress isn't supposed to establish a religion" Huh? That makes no sense. It boils down to people with an agenda against religion, not a constitutional mandate not to establish a religion.

It will be funny to see all those religious leaders run to the White House to grovel for money the same way that corporate leaders grovel.

	13-10-2003 07:17									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun It will be funny to see all those religious leaders run to the White House to grovel for money the same way that corporate leaders grovel.

Indeed

	13-10-2003 07:19									#42
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Greed in the name of God!!!

should be fun to watch

	13-10-2003 07:42									#43
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Greed in the name of God!!! should be fun to watch

Greed in the name of God is nothing new. Religious figures have always gravitated to centers of power. They may now actually now persue something worthwhile instead of backroom power deals. They are, after all, as human as the rest of us.

	13-10-2003 08:44									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

the Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

separation of church and state is a law made by the judgeocracy of the united states

	13-10-2003 08:55									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: It will be funny to see all those religious leaders run to the White House to grovel for money the same way that corporate leaders grovel.

Most probably won't because the money will have strings attached (ie, no proselytizing when using the money, etc). Most religions don't want the state interfering in their sphere.

The only ones asking will probably be the parishes in the inner cities.

	13-10-2003 09:01									#46
	Put an end to popups!

Excuse me, Imran??

Many fundies advocate that state governments have the right to legislate morality laws -- isn't that considered interference in their "sphere" -- even if it's in their interests??

	13-10-2003 09:12									#47
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: I'm not trolling Republicans -- I am sincerely against any direct or indirect form of government sponsorship or endorsement of any religion.

Good for you. I'm sure this little girl appreciates you and your pointless stand.

http://us.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/10...reut/index.html

	13-10-2003 09:16									#48
	Remove this text

quote: Excuse me, Imran?? Many fundies advocate that state governments have the right to legislate morality laws -- isn't that considered interference in their "sphere" -- even if it's in their interests??

So fundies are now most religions? I know am getting more insight into how your mind works.

Look at the history of religion in the US. Most of them welcomed a seperation of church and state (and backed that language to be placed in the Constitution) because they wanted a wall placed between them. A lot of this is because of Anabaptist influence.

	13-10-2003 09:24									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If the founding fathers had no issue with this whatsoever..why hasn;t this been common practice for the last 200 years? I mean, obviosuly those guys that wrote the consitution would have felt no problem with it, which is why since 1789, the Feds have pumped billions into charities that were relgiously affiliated..I mean, the list is endless. Just in 1915, under good old Wilson, the Feds gave......

wait, no..this hasn;t been common practice since the inception of the US. I wonder why?

	13-10-2003 09:39									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GePap If the founding fathers had no issue with this whatsoever..why hasn;t this been common practice for the last 200 years? I mean, obviosuly those guys that wrote the consitution would have felt no problem with it, which is why since 1789, the Feds have pumped billions into charities that were relgiously affiliated..I mean, the list is endless. Just in 1915, under good old Wilson, the Feds gave...... wait, no..this hasn;t been common practice since the inception of the US. I wonder why?

I don't know that this is exactly correct. Many charitable organizations that have religious ties recieved funds during several time periods. You are correct in saying that Churches have not recieved any $$. But then again, Churches won't be recieving any money now.

Additionally, if you are going to use the "founding fathers" argument, then let's start rippin away at a lot of the current practices of the federal government.

	13-10-2003 09:49									#51
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: I'm not trolling Republicans -- I am sincerely against any direct or indirect form of government sponsorship or endorsement of any religion. Good for you. I'm sure this little girl appreciates you and your pointless stand. http://us.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/10...reut/index.html

You are going into the left field. I definitely think that this girl was wronged.

	13-10-2003 09:50									#52
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Excuse me, Imran?? Many fundies advocate that state governments have the right to legislate morality laws -- isn't that considered interference in their "sphere" -- even if it's in their interests?? So fundies are now most religions? I know am getting more insight into how your mind works. Look at the history of religion in the US. Most of them welcomed a seperation of church and state (and backed that language to be placed in the Constitution) because they wanted a wall placed between them. A lot of this is because of Anabaptist influence.

Don't bastardize my statements.

Where did I say most religions/religious people are fundies?

In my statement, I said, "Many fundies . . . ."
NOT "Many religious people . . . ."

	13-10-2003 09:51									#53
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: which is why since 1789, the Feds have pumped billions into charities that were relgiously affiliated

Aside from Plato's comments (funding was recieved by religious charitible organizations at some periods), you seem to forget that for most of US history NO charitable organizations got funding by the government. It would have been hard to divert money to charities without an income tax (which was instated in the 1910s).

	13-10-2003 09:53									#54
	Support Apolyton

quote: You are going into the left field. I definitely think that this girl was wronged.

She was wronged, based on some bullshit "seperation of church and state" excuse. You pinkos threw common sense out the window long ago and now children are paying the price for it. Good show.

	13-10-2003 09:54									#55
	Remove this text

GePap -

quote: If the founding fathers had no issue with this whatsoever..why hasn;t this been common practice for the last 200 years?

Because the idea of massively re-distributing wealth began in the 1930's.

quote: I mean, obviosuly those guys that wrote the consitution would have felt no problem with it, which is why since 1789, the Feds have pumped billions into charities that were relgiously affiliated..I mean, the list is endless. Just in 1915, under good old Wilson, the Feds gave...... wait, no..this hasn;t been common practice since the inception of the US. I wonder why?

See above...

Mr Fun -

quote: I'm not trolling Republicans -- I am sincerely against any direct or indirect form of government sponsorship or endorsement of any religion.

You missed my point, this wouldn't even be happening if not for the left wanting to ignore the Constitution when it comes to using the treasury to hand out other people's money. So it is dis-ingenuous to advocate ignoring the Constitution when it suits you but complain when others are ignoring the Constitution when it suits them.

Plato -

quote: First of all, the Government is in the business of making moral choices.

You mean immoral choices, I find little or nothing moral about government. This government cannot exist without first threatening people to get their money - "taxes".

quote: The Constitution does prevent them from establishing a religion. It does not prohibit them from funding charities that they, as the elected government, choose to find as beneficial to society.

Where in the Constitution did you find a power to fund charities? In the 1790's, James Madison was a member of the House and someone introduced an appropriation to help some people in need. In opposition, Madison said he could not put his finger on that power in the Constitution authorising charity. He further added if this was allowed, there would be no end to the mischief engaged in by Congress - he was right.

quote: Furthermore, the government is not supporting the belief system of any church or its teaching, but rather they are supporting relief work that is usually delivered in an extremely cost effective way. Why would anyone want something different?

Many churches doing charity work do push their religion in the hope of changing the hearts and minds of those they help. Would you argue the Catholic Church does not push Catholicism thru it's school system? Government funding will simply allow the Church to expand it's outreach since money is fungible... Honestly, how would Catholics etc react to politicians handing taxdollars to Satanists or Wicca?

	13-10-2003 09:55									#56
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Where did I say most religions/religious people are fundies?

When I was refering to most religions, and you turned it around to say fundies.

	13-10-2003 09:55									#57
	Get a bigger avatar today!

So it has to be all or nothing, Drake??


And Imran, don't bastardize my statements again.

	13-10-2003 09:55									#58
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Where did I say most religions/religious people are fundies? When I was refering to most religions, and you turned it around to say fundies.

So then we were talking about two different groups of people.

ok

	13-10-2003 09:58									#59
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: don't bastardize my statements again.

I haven't... I'm just stating the facts... but if you'll have me quote:

Imran:

quote: Most religions don't want the state interfering in their sphere.

MrFun:

quote: Many fundies advocate that state governments have the right to legislate morality laws -- isn't that considered interference in their "sphere" -- even if it's in their interests??

Game. Set. Match.

I didn't bastardize anything, just quoted... and I was refering to 'Most religions', you came back with 'Many fundies'.

Lets see you continue to back away from your statements now .

	13-10-2003 09:59									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: So it has to be all or nothing, Drake?

It shouldn't be all or nothing, but that's what you and your liberal compadres have turned it into. You fight against every little connection between government and religion, even when the ultimate goal (helping the needy, respecting a little girl's religious beliefs) is a noble one. Your complete lack of perspective has become the status quo and the country is suffering for it.