In reference to this profound analysist:
Stalin - Hitler - Mao. About 20 million dead thanks to the 3 non-religious guys. I'll take the believers as leaders any day. And then there were those deeply "religious" countries Germany and Italy to name the most familiar examples of Christian countries that had no problem cozying up, quite comfortably, with fascism: Hitler, Mussolini. et al. The folks who conducted the Salem witch trials were very religious. And the folks who hounded Galileo? The inquisition? All heavy-duty believers. And the folks who see Jesus or Mary in Dunkin' Donuts? And the puritans who beheaded a King; they could only lead for 12 years before they were booted out. ======================================================= Beware the self-proclaimed political theorists who provide information "a mile wide, and an inch shallow." Sometimes they're merely cherry-picking ideologues. ========Original Message======== Subj: [AsburyPark] Re: Justified Right Date: 3/7/2007 9:30:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[email protected]) Sent on: Jack if it is fair to bring up examples of religious people you think have failed, then I suppose it is fair for me to bring to your attention three non-religious, Secular Humanist/Darwinists of the 20th Century: Stalin - Hitler - Mao. About 20 million dead thanks to the 3 non-religious guys. I'll take the believers as leaders any day. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[email protected]) , "Hinge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't want to change the fact that I "live in a religious country" > I just don't want it affecting my life. > As for America being very religious, perhaps it is, but I think that > in many regards, America's religious establishments have made a > mockery of themselves. Take all the priest sex scandals? What about > people like GW who's very religious, but he's lied to the public on a > number of occasions (although maybe he was just relaying info he > thought was true). Before and during the war, GW has brought God into > nearly every speech he's done, yet because of his misguided war, 3100 > plus US soldiers, and countless Iraqi's have died. What about the Abu > Grabe abuse? What "god" would let that happen? What about the anti > abortion religious kooks who think it's ok to blow up clinics and harm > innocent people? > As far as i'm concerned, religion is not a fact. I'd be happy to > change that opinion if somebody could provide me with absolute proof, > but I don't see that happening anytime soon > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[email protected]) , "justifiedright" > <justifiedright@> wrote: > > > > The point is you are living in a religious country. You want to > > change that, and that's your right to try. However, you have no > > right to stop me from pointing out that your prior posts seemed to > > ignore history and law. > > > > America is a very religious country. > > > > You feel religion plays to big a role in our governing. I say its > > too small. > > > > To each our own. > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[email protected]) , "Hinge" <hinge98@> wrote: > > > > > > Is your point that because i'm in the minority when it comes to > > > religion, my views are any less important? Is your point that I > > just > > > have to accept the fact that religious influence on issue's in our > > > country are correct? I think the religious influence is way out of > > > control. I really don't think it has any place in the governing of > > our > > > country. > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[email protected]) , "Hinge" <hinge98@> wrote: > > > > > > > > And? What's your point? > > > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[email protected]) , "justifiedright" > > > > <justifiedright@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You may not be religious, but your country is. > > > > > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[email protected]) , "Hinge" <hinge98@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You are partially right; > > > > > > "The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress > > shall > > > > > make no law > > > > > > respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the > > free > > > > > exercise thereof". Both > > > > > > these clauses, known as the "establishment clause" and > > the "free > > > > > exercise clause" > > > > > > respectively, are significant. To give perspective, there > > was a > > > > > great conservation of > > > > > > language in the Bill of Rights; the intention was to avoid > > > > > creating loopholes, while still > > > > > > providing a buffer between the Legislature and the most > > basic > > > > > rights of the people. It is > > > > > > significant, then, that there are two clauses where one > > would > > > > > suffice, were the intention > > > > > > only to prevent respect for a religious establishment or > > only to > > > > > protect free exercise." > > > > > > Even though i'm a non-believer, I respect people that do. I > > just > > > > > feel that religion is playing > > > > > > way to big a role in our countries politics. That role is > > making > > > > > an assumption that religion > > > > > > is "fact" and that we are all religious. > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[email protected]) , "justifiedright" > > > > > <justifiedright@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[email protected]) , "Hinge" <hinge98@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it's in the Constitution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it isn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In my opinion, my rights are being violated every single > > time > > > > > that > > > > > > > > religion has an influence in the decisions made in our > > country. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I should be forced to denounce my religion before > > entering a > > > > > voting > > > > > > > booth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
