VERY WELL SAID! btw...CONGRATULATIONS FOR HAVING OVER 2,000 POSTS!!! :D

Seperation of church and state is NOT censure! The seperation of church and state was established to prevent exactly that. We have this to ensure tolerance. Our government is meant to represent all of us. Having a large statue of the Ten Commandments in my capitol will not represent me. Me asking that the Ten Commandments not be there is not a censure nor a form of disrespect to anyone's religon. To think that just because you can't put it everywhere you want it is a form of disrespect is ridiculous. For it to be in my face all the time is disrespectful. It doesn't make you feel good to be told that you are constantly wrong for believing something is asinine. The same thing was told to people who felt strongly about abolition (not that they are the same but it is a good metaphor.) It is a simple act of asking for respect to me and the people like me. Oh and I agree we shouldnt get off of work for Easter or Christmas. We should get off for Egg Day and Santamas! :)

By the way, America was not founded solely because people wanted religious freedom. Most of the first settlements in America were greedy people who came here to exploit the land and make money. People came here for resources and land. Nothing more. In fact, really the only people who came here because of religion were the Pilgrims and Quakers. Every other colony was founded on the basis of trade. Oh yeah, and Britian shipped their convicts here too.

Oh, and the first "Thanksgiving" had very little to do with God. That's a pretty recent development. It was more to celebrate solidarity with the Native American people who kept the settlers alive...until we decided to kill them because they were "savages".

~Bryan (the 'br' in Brosie)

Again, if you carefully read my posts, you would understand the point I am making here. Separation of church and state is censure when it prevents "me" from expressing my religious freedom because it might offend "you," the atheist, or others. No matter how you spin it, that is often what it does. I'm saying "you" should tolerate my religion just as I tolerate yours and I should be able to practice my religious choices everywhere you can. Also, I think if you are very comfortable in your own beliefs and choices, the choices and beliefs of those who are different than yours, would not and should not offend you. I would respond to the rest of the comments in the thread, but I don't find them worthy of a response as I see them as idealistic rants rather than reasoned opinion.

No, you don't get what I am saying. I do get your point, and I disagree. What I am attempting to say is that you have the freedom to PRACTICE your religion where ever you feel like it. That does not mean that you have to publicly display or force your religion on other people. I take offense to the fact that you make the assumption that someone who would have this opinion has got to be atheist. While Bryan is, I am not, and I feel the same way that he does. That does not diminish my belief in God, but does mean that I attempt to have respect for other people. And just because he doesn't believe in God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't have beliefs. He has convictions the same as you do, and nothing gives anyone the right to discredit them. Religion does not offend him, but being forced to have religion in his face does. We shouldn't have the government taking a stance on what is "right" if we wish to be tolerant. For every right there is a wrong, and to say that Chrisitianity is right means that everything else is wrong. That breeds intolerance.

And I am willing to believe that people should take every step possible to be sensitive to people around them and not offend them, even if it is a VERY SMALL inconvenience to you.

1. Why are two different people posting on this account here? How do I know who I am supposed to be "talking" to.

2. Since you were not who originally posted, I think my post was solely directed towards Bryan.

3. I never made an assumption that someone was an atheist, I used the word "you" in quotation marks when I wrote the post you quoted.

4. I did not force my religion on anyone, I don't have a clue what you are referring to here.

5. I never said that "Christianity was right"

6. If we want to breed tolerance, we also cannot have the government taking a stance that "chrisitianity is wrong in some venues." THat leads to the censure aspect I referred to.

7. "And I am willing to believe that people should take every step possible to be sensitive to people around them and not offend them, even if it is a VERY SMALL inconvenience to you." You quote this, but from posts to me, it is obvious you don't practice it.

I think it's time to walk away from the computer!

1. We live in the same house and he rarely posts. He puts his name at the bottom so you know.

2. I think that should just show that just because it is directed at one specific person doesn't mean that it won't offend other people who read it. And if it is my belief too, then I don't see the problem. We all feed off of each other's posts here. That is the purpose of the forum.

3. I will apologize that I assumed that. However, even while putting you in quotation marks, it is not right to assume someone's religion based on their political beliefs. Some people do seperate them (which is the purpose behind all of this.)

4. What was meant by that is that for people to do things like legislate religion or to place religious symbols, etc. in public or governmental institutions is a forcing of religion. I'm sorry if that was misconstrued.

5. That was not my argument. My statement was that for the people in the government to legislate religion is forcing religion on people. I do not feel that is an acceptable way for the government to act.

6. By taking a stance of "no religion period" in a governmental aspect does not mean that chrisitainity is wrong, but rather that "the governmental entity does not take a stance on what is right or wrong in this regard." That is not intolerant. Nor is that censorship. It is a complete elimination on belief. It does not prevent people from PRACTICING their religion.

7. I have no idea why you would think that I am being intolerant. I am saying that people who do not believe that government and religion should mix have just as many rights as the people who believe that they do. They should not be discounted as "immoral" or "wrong" (not that you do). I am accepting of what you have to say, but I think that what you have to say is wrong. I also believe that you are entitled to that opinion. That is tolerance, and I don't know how it could be construed as anything but. Maybe an example to back up the assertion would be more helpful.

Politics, religion and abortion. The 3 taboos of conversation and this thread has broken 2 of them.