I have no idea. Maybe I thought kicking might be a little too much and end up seriously injuring/killing the dog. Since neither of them were my dogs I didn't want to get too carried away.

I can understand that. I'd still kick before I got my hand (and fingers) near the head though.



--------------------------------------------------------------
GW: Nilaar Madalla, lvl 20 R/Mo / Tolyl Nor, lvl 20 E/Mo / Xylos Gath, lvl 13 W/Mo

http://www.goldfrapp.co.uk/

Ummm...if you had to get that close to the dog, why not kick the shit out of it instead?

I have no idea. Maybe I thought kicking might be a little too much and end up seriously injuring/killing the dog. Since neither of them were my dogs I didn't want to get too carried away. Sounds stupid I know but hindsight is 20-20. I can safely say that the head is the last place you attack a dog unless it is its nose or something.

Atheists believe that there is no God; the opposite of what a Judeo-Christian believes. An atheist has a set a of notions that they believe as the truth. While those notions aren't of a theistic value, they are values that are believed to be as rightful to an atheist as a Judeo-Christian believes his own notions are true. Among other things a religion is a set of beliefs. You seem hung up on not wanting to admit the belief that there isn't a God (atheism) isn't a religion.

As I'm myself an atheist I'd like to say that while it certainly is a belief in that there is no logical evidence, it is based on scientific reasoning and induction. To me, there is no reason to invoke the existence of any god. Hence, being atheistic seems more reasonable (in the scientific sense).

You're clearly an atheist so let me ask you while ive got your attention. Would you be against the displaying of a Pieter Pauwel Rubens painting depicting a biblical scene in a public museum that is funded by the US federal government?

There's no denying that Christianity is a big part of our cultural history so I'm sure neither I nor Bhruic would oppose to that.

Jokingly the other day, I came up with a new "religion" that basically sprouted into a sort of new year's resolution: Danism.

Of course, the memebership consists just of myself... with maximum possible being one.

The only guidelines: Belief in Dan, and treating others as Dan would like to be treated.

Dan =0)

....en það besta sem guð hefur skapa er nýr dagur - Sigur Rós, viðrar vel til loftárása
Self-plug: http://www.dankupka.com
Self-plug #2: http://dankupkamusic.blogspot.com

The church as an institution and the state as an institution are autonomous.

Tell that to the Christian Conservatives, who seem to disagree.

The very word atheist denotes one who is (a theos) against God.

And this is where you're completely and utterly wrong.

Atheism does not mean "against god", it means "without god". Go look up the etymology yourself.

An atheistic nation is one that strives to eliminate all trace of God worshippers from the public square. We have seen some of this in Communist countries. Brutality and repression result.

Yeah, because as we all know religion or self-proclaimed religious people have never been responsible for any of the same. Crusades? Inquisition? Salem witch trials? Justification of slavery on biblical reference? McCarthy hearings?

Christianity (or any religion) is not a free ticket to being good and pure. Atheism is not a declaration of evil or hedonism.

As far as the roots of this country are concerned -- I think a lot of the Christians who are using this gambit need to go back and read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers and other associated documents that actually do detail the founding of this country. They're completely and utterly offbase. There were very specific reasons that the founding fathers separated religion and the state, and went to great lengths to not refer to any religious creed, organization, or even deity in the Constitution or Articles of Confederation. Yes, they were religious men, but not in the way that modern Christians are, and certainly not in the way that the Christian Conservatives are touting.
This comment was edited on Jan 5, 09:34.

And part of this cultural conflict over there in the USofA is the war on christmas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Christmas

Tell you what, if by next year, the "liberals" have managed to obliterate Christmas, you can all come over here and celebrate. Be warned though, there's a lot of cleaning and baking to be done, including a gingerbread house, and you would be expected to help.

___________________________________________
GW: Vergil Gregorius, lvl 9 12 13 W/Ne
Britney Constantine, lvl 16 19 20 Ascended Ne/W

"People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people"

You seem hung up on not wanting to admit the belief that there isn't a God (atheism) isn't a religion.

It's not a religion. Of course, my original post made no claim about it not being one, so I'm not sure why you chose to suggest I'm "hung up" on it.

No it isn't an attack on Christianity its attack on the advocates of that religion.

That's a nice statement to casually throw off, but what's your justification for it?

You're clearly an atheist so let me ask you while ive got your attention.

Oh, good, now you are labeling me, without even bothering to inquire if your labels are accurate. No, I'm not an atheist.

Can you make your posts more civil, is that possible?

Not really, as my post(s) weren't uncivil to begin with.

My post denotes my extreme tolerance of the these ideas im discussing.

No, your post demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the topic you are attempting to speak about.

Again, it is time the increasingly vocal atheistic voice started practicing some tolerance and rejoin the community of patriotic Americans who agree to work together in a secular state for the benefit of all. har har

I'm going to hope that the 'har har' on the end is an indication you realize what a joke your statement is. I'm probably wrong, but I'm going to hope it nonetheless.

Oh, please. Atheism means nothing of the sort. An atheist does not believe in the existence of God. That in no way assumes that an Atheist is hostile to religion. Lack of belief in something does not correspond to hostility towards people/organizations that do believe in it.

Atheists believe that there is no God; the opposite of what a Judeo-Christian believes. An atheist has a set a of notions that they believe as the truth. While those notions aren't of a theistic value, they are values that are believed to be as rightful to an atheist as a Judeo-Christian believes his own notions are true. Among other things a religion is a set of beliefs. You seem hung up on not wanting to admit the belief that there isn't a God (atheism) isn't a religion.

Removing it is not an attack on Christianity (or any other religion), it's a restoration of the principles the country was founded on.

No it isn't an attack on Christianity its attack on the advocates of that religion.

Do you have any recollection of the history of the United States of America at all?

You're clearly an atheist so let me ask you while ive got your attention. Would you be against the displaying of a Pieter Pauwel Rubens painting depicting a biblical scene in a public museum that is funded by the US federal government?


Can you make your posts more civil, is that possible? My post denotes my extreme tolerance of the these ideas im discussing. From the look of some of your remarks you apparently took it as a threat. Again, it is time the increasingly vocal atheistic voice started practicing some tolerance and rejoin the community of patriotic Americans who agree to work together in a secular state for the benefit of all. har har


This comment was edited on Jan 5, 04:01.

Thanks Bhruic! Very well put.

An atheistic state would, by definition, be hostile to religion. The very word atheist denotes one who is (a theos) against God. This is itself a religious stance.

Oh, please. Atheism means nothing of the sort. An atheist does not believe in the existence of God. That in no way assumes that an Atheist is hostile to religion. Lack of belief in something does not correspond to hostility towards people/organizations that do believe in it.

Are there atheists who are hostile to religions? Most certainly. There are also religious individuals who are hostile towards atheists. It is not, however, part of the definition of atheists (or religions).

They do not have the right to force all Americans to worship Jesus Christ. In the same way, atheists do not have the right to ban religious speech, concepts, and politics – merely because they are made, held, or practiced by Christians.

Talk about comparing apples and oranges! So a Christian not forcing someone to worship Jesus Christ is the equivalent of an atheist banning religion from the public space? How exactly does that add up? If you want to make it equivalent, how about "Atheists do not have the right to force all Americans not to worship Jesus Christ (or any other deity)"? And, of course, atheists aren't trying to accomplish that, so your argument falls apart.

What you fail to grasp is that the religious speech, concepts and politics that you are referring to were all intrusions into the governmental space by Christians. In other words, the pledge of allegiance didn't start off with "One nation under God", that was forced in by Christians - exactly the sort of "interfering" you are decrying now, with the added bonus of it being against the Constitution. Removing it is not an attack on Christianity (or any other religion), it's a restoration of the principles the country was founded on.

I got my fancy new bike today. Front and rear wheel shocks and all. It’s kinda cool actually. And the trip to school was faster and easier than I expected! Plus I should be done rebuilding my car engine by Sunday! Two modes of transportation and a whole week to spare before school starts back….eat that suckers!

Congrats! I must have missed the mention of the bike purchase - what did you get?


*** Warhawk ***

Your repeated violation of the Verbal Morality Statute has caused me to notify the San Angeles Police Department. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.

the tree the day and the season were co-opted by the Christians

I know, I know, but for as long as this country has been in existence it has been a Christmas Tree and the holiday has been Christmas. The holiday holds religious meaning to those that follow it, which also happens to be the predominant religion of the founding fathers of this country, and who referenced the religion in the document that was used to establish this country - The Declaration of Independence.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The reason for the holiday, in modern times, has been tied to the birth of Jusus, whether it was his "real" birthday or not, since nobody knows the exact day. I am by no means advocating a national "religion", but the attack on the culture and history this nation was founded upon needs to stop.


*** Warhawk ***

Your repeated violation of the Verbal Morality Statute has caused me to notify the San Angeles Police Department. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.

I got my fancy new bike today. Front and rear wheel shocks and all. It’s kinda cool actually. And the trip to school was faster and easier than I expected! Plus I should be done rebuilding my car engine by Sunday! Two modes of transportation and a whole week to spare before school starts back….eat that suckers!

http://www.frappr.com/bluesnewsmembers
Show me where you live! I promise it will only hurt the first time.

It occurs to me, that we here in Norway, where we in theory do not have a separation between church and state, in practice have a more separated church and state than the US, where this separation is supposedly guaranteed by the constitution...

Just a thought.

In the context of the American Experiment, secular and atheistic do not mean the same thing. We are a secular nation, but not an atheistic nation. Secular refers to an authority that exists outside of or apart from the authority of the church. We certainly have that in America. The church official cannot of his own authority set binding public policy on people who do not recognize his authority. The people elect the leaders they want to set the binding public policy. Likewise, the political leader cannot dictate the belief or practice of any church. The church as an institution and the state as an institution are autonomous.

An atheistic state would, by definition, be hostile to religion. The very word atheist denotes one who is (a theos) against God. This is itself a religious stance. An atheistic nation is one that strives to eliminate all trace of God worshippers from the public square. We have seen some of this in Communist countries. Brutality and repression result.

It is possible to be a Christian secularist. In the context of the gospel, the word secular carries a negative connotation (and rightly so) – being a synonym for materialistic worldliness and all its evils. However, in the political arena, Christians need to recognize secular as a term denoting the American belief (Constituted in the 1st Amendment) that your church cannot tell my church what to do as a church. This is the protection for which Isaac Backus fought. (Backus was the first prominent Baptist in America and the father of the US concept of religious liberty, though not the phrase "separation of church and state"). This is a protection freedom-loving American Christians have died to protect over the history of our nation.

But it is not the Christians who are most in need of this recognition. It is the anti-Christians (NOW, ACLU, Robert Reich). The 1st Amendment does not exalt atheism over other religious beliefs in the United States of America. As much as it protects atheists from over-reaching religionists, it protects people of faith from the atheists who would like to see them removed.

The atheistic state must be fought at all costs. Christians have the right to participate as citizens in public life with all the rights and privileges atheists do. Christians have the right to debate and set public policy through their elected representatives just like non-Christians do. Christians have the right to set limits on aberrant and harmful behavior just like Green party candidates do.

They do not have the right to force all Americans to worship Jesus Christ. In the same way, atheists do not have the right to ban religious speech, concepts, and politics – merely because they are made, held, or practiced by Christians.

It is time the increasingly vocal atheistic voice started practicing some tolerance and rejoin the community of patriotic Americans who agree to work together in a secular state for the benefit of all.

I think that about does it.

I'm sorry, it's not a Holiday Tree, it's a Christmas Tree. The holiday is Christmas.

Really, I think the whole argument is dumb and didn't want to contribute to it, but: the tree the day and the season were co-opted by the Christians from other religions that were around long before The Jesus. So, er, it's more a Various-Solstice-Holiday Tree. The evergreen in the winter was an example of new life and rebirth post-solstice. It's been associated with Dionysus, the Yule festival, etc. Though the decorate-the-tree-with-ornaments thing is newish (4, 500 years?) and fairly Christian in origin, it's got other roots.

I personally think Holiday Tree sounds dumb, but, hell, call it whatever you want.

however it would appear to be a national threat based on the amount of energy being focused on it by some on the left.
It's one dude in California Warhawk. That doesn't even qualify as "some". While I'm sure he's got some supporters, he also has a lot of detractors -- including myself.

That said, go look into the history of the two phrases you mention. I was actually surprised by the history of the coinage.


A lot of folks feel that we have much more important things to deal with than trying to remove the 10 commandments from any and all government properties and other similar acts.
I agree. So why are Christian Conservatives repeatedly trying to put them in place in direct contradiction of repeated Supreme Court rulings? I mean, come on, the judge in Alabama put in a freaking 2.7 ton monument and only later tried adding other documents to comply with the a priori SCOTUS rulings. Don't try to paint this as a purely liberal agenda -- it's countering a conservative one.

Z - I agree that some on the right go overboard trying to "insert" religion where it doesn't belong, and I don't agree with that at all. But it isn't just "one guy in California" (actually, he lives in my town, Elk Grove ), he just happens to be one of the most vocal ones. For example, school boards across the country have been pressured to remove any reference to Christmas and Easter from their vacation schedule and celebrations, now it's "Winter Holiday" and "Spring Vacation", or whatever it is they force (yes, force) teachers to use now. I'm sorry, it's not a Holiday Tree, it's a Christmas Tree. The holiday is Christmas.


*** Warhawk ***

Your repeated violation of the Verbal Morality Statute has caused me to notify the San Angeles Police Department. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.

It isn't a question of "allowing", it is a question of lawsuits and litigation to forcibly remove all mention of our (the USA's) Christian heritage from all aspects of daily life, especially when incidentally associated with government. The mention of "under God" or "in God we trust", for instance, does not establish any specific religion, however it would appear to be a national threat based on the amount of energy being focused on it by some on the left.

A couple points:
1) Using the heritage defense doesn't really work. The concept of 'heritage' has no intrinsic value system attached to it, so there is no indication of whether a particular heritage item is a positive or negative one. For example, the US has a heritage of slavery, but I think most of us would agree that slavery has no place in the modern world.

2) Even if the heritage defense was legitimate, the mention of God in your pledge of allegiance and on your coins is a relatively modern action. Most specifically for the pledge, in which case it was added during the McCarthy era to 'combat' the 'godless Communists'.

3) I agree that if you look at the specific instances it may look minor (ie, "Who cares what's written on coins?"), but the reality is, you still have numerous states in which it is not legally possible to be an athiest in government office. These relatively 'minor' specifics can become more major when looked at as part of a whole, and not isolated instances.

To me it looks like a manlift on a crane attempting to either fix a stuck ride or rescue the people on the ride when the ride suddenly becomes "unstuck". The two people who fall come from the crane, not the ride. Also, what is that swinging in from the left side - a firetruck ladder perhaps?

-------------------------------------------------------
I think a good gift for the president would be a chocolate revolver, and since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up real quick and hand it to him. - Jack Handy

It occurs to me, that we here in Norway, where we in theory do not have a separation between church and state, in practice have a more separated church and state than the US, where this separation is supposedly guaranteed by the constitution...

Just a thought.




___________________________________________
GW: Vergil Gregorius, lvl 9 12 13 W/Ne
Britney Constantine, lvl 16 19 20 Ascended Ne/W

"People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people"
This comment was edited on Jan 4, 21:14.

however it would appear to be a national threat based on the amount of energy being focused on it by some on the left.

It's one dude in California Warhawk. That doesn't even qualify as "some". While I'm sure he's got some supporters, he also has a lot of detractors -- including myself.

That said, go look into the history of the two phrases you mention. I was actually surprised by the history of the coinage.

A lot of folks feel that we have much more important things to deal with than trying to remove the 10 commandments from any and all government properties and other similar acts.

I agree. So why are Christian Conservatives repeatedly trying to put them in place in direct contradiction of repeated Supreme Court rulings? I mean, come on, the judge in Alabama put in a freaking 2.7 ton monument and only later tried adding other documents to comply with the a priori SCOTUS rulings. Don't try to paint this as a purely liberal agenda -- it's countering a conservative one.