Your rights are violated if the gov't endorses a religion? Why? Are you still not able to have freedom to practice your religion? Do you lose any rights to vote or have medical benefits applied to you? You do not lose your religion and you are not forced to change your religion so I do not see how your rights are violated.
The US gov't embraced Christianity many decades ago. There is a difference between embracing it and forcing the public to follow and embracing it to give those who share the same founding beliefs something to look toward to show the country keeps its foundations intact for one thing. This does NOT stop anyone else not sharing the same view from still practicing their views. No one forces a Catholic to go to a Baptist church and a Catholic does not mind if a Baptist church has a get-together for only Baptists followers. The Catholics chose their particular denomination and have to take the advantages and disadvantages along with it and UNDERSTAND that those exist and not just assume that the Baptists have to invite everyone to their get-togethers just because the Catholics don't want to feel left out or "oppressed" because someone else has a different view than them.
How many differnt brands of Christianity are there? Only 1 I thought. There is no "American" Christianity. THere is only Christianity. THe separation the COnstitution refers to is so that the gov't can not enforce a gov't run religion and prevent people from having rights and privilegs because they may not agree with that religion. The gov't is not doing that and therefore are meeting the separation. Endorsing a particular religion does not force you to practice that same religion, contrary to what you may believe. Now Iraq may do that or Iran or whatever but the US does not force you to become a member of any religion and punish you for not doing so in the form of political and social oppression you talk about. The reason Christian-related refernces are made is because this gov't was founded with a Christian related faith by God fearing and believing men. No Muslim or Hindu followers were involved in the founding of this country and if there were their beliefs have not been incorporated into any of aspect of this country in any meaningful way. I don't know where you get your history but the founding principles are Christian and Christians aren't selling out themselves.
The gov't is allowed to have references to a particular religion without making the public be a part of that religion. Nothing says you have to be a Christian. You do not lose any rights by the government having certain references to Christianity. That is the religious freedom we have. That is the separation of church and state if there ever was any. That is the gov't respecting an establishment of all religions: by not forcing you to be a member of the same religion as the gov't or just by the gov't forcing you to be part of a particular religion.
Madison would pick up the fight again during the drafting of the First Amendment. As chairman of the House conference committee on the Bill of Rights, Madison's original draft was among the most ambitious: "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship...nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed...." Though somewhat less expansive in its protections, the final version--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" --clearly bears the Madison stamp.
That is the truth behind the Constituational phrase you think wants to make sure that the gov't does not mix church and state. The separation means the gov't can't force a religion upon you or deny you rights because of your religion. The US gov't is not doing that so don't say you are being oppressed or having my faith forced upon you. James Madison praised the separation of church and state but he didn't mean the gov't could not say ANYTHING on religion.
also happens to forbid the government from promoting atheism.
Ain't that a relief
When the government promotes monotheism it is religious opression of Native American beliefs. The constituion forbids it.
Oppression? what is stopping the Native Americans from still practicing their religion? They are not being prevented from doing any such thing. THey are not being persecuted for their polytheistic beliefs so where exactly does the oppression come in again?
"not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."-- Encyclopedia Brittanica
Nitpick: Not all of the Founding Fathers were made up of the first 6 Presidents of the US as there were more than 6 Founding Fathers for one thing. I'm sure there are some Presidents who aren't Christian although I'm sure there are very few.
I would object because Satanism isn't the founding religion of this country and therefore for 1) it has no relevance and 2) it is wrong to use that wording when Christianity is the prevalent religion as well as the founding religion of the country so it wouldn't make sense to have wording about Satan.
Just because I say yes does not mean I'm admitting oppression. You are obviously thinking you are oppressed and that is a major problem that I have because being oppressed means you are being prevented from exercising your own religion (or lack thereof if that is the case) and/or you are being forced to exercise a religion not of your preference (Christianity) or maybe even being prevented from having certain rights or privileges because your religion does not agree with the governments. YOu are not being prevented and you are not being forced to do anything and you are not being denied any rights or privileges so how are you being oppressed? Because none of those would happen to me if it said "under Satan" instead of "under God" then I'm not being oppressed either. My only objection is what I said above in the first paragraph.
I honestly can't think of why I would not object to the Satan version however I can think of a reason why the "under God" part is nice to have. It reinforces the people's faith of this country in God who overlooks this country and protects it (although with increasing lack of trust and faith in God why should He protect it as much as He used to?). The main point here is that you are going to say that your faith isn't with God. Well, that is obviously your choice but the main faith of this country is Christianity and if you feel "opressed" or left out then I can't help it. It's like buying a SUV when all your friends of minivans and then complaining that a mutual friend of the SUV crowd and minivan crowd only invited the people who owned minivans to a party because there were more people of those type and the mutual friend though more people would make the party better. So you feel oppressed because you weren't invited because you own an SUV. The point being that is your choice and you have to deal with the fact that you are part of the minority and have to deal with all the advantages and disadvantages of that. The minivan owners have to deal with the disadvantages of the SUV people callng them weenies because they got a minivan instead of an SUV.
This country was founded by people who wisely kept religion in government but wisely made sure that the government did not pass laws forcing any particular religion on the populous (respecting an established religion). This is why the Pilgrims came over here: so they could pick any religion they want without the gov't forcing it on them. It doesn't mean the gov't can't prefer a religion but it doesn't mean the gov't can force that same religion on the public. You may think you are being forced to be Christian by what you are hearing/seeing but you are not. You have the same rights and privileges by choosing to be atheist or whatever. Nobody is trying to take your religion away. You keep forgetting one point: Christians founded this country and based this country on a religious foundation. You still have to swear on the Bible when testifying in court. Your money has God's name on it. If your religion differs from that view then fine but for those people (the majority who agrees with the founding religion) who like to see their religion reflected in public institutions and locations then with you being of different religion and still within this country you have to deal with that type of situation. Just because that religion is reflected in public and political situations does not at all prevent you from exercising your religion.
Bottom line: You just don't like seeing someone else's (dare I say anyone's?) religion in a public/political atmosphere and want to stifle it even when it is in no way infringing on yours.
But your blanket "shutup" speaks volumes about your disrespect for the individuality and good citizenship that the laws of our nation encourage.
I just get tired of people taking away my religion from public places. Yes I can still practice it but it's the founding faith of this country and people want to get rid of it because they think the founding fathers wanted it that way. The founding fathers didn't want there to be a state run gov't and there isn't one. The gov't is making reference to christianity simply because its the faith of this country and if you disagree with that faith then so be it but don't take it away from me or this country simply b/c you don't like it. It's not hurting you. The main point being, we can both practice our own but mine happens to be the original faith so that is what should stay. Taking out religion is not what the founding fathers said. THey did not want religious oppression to rule and it's not but you think it is for some reason.
Forcing your child to say the pledge with the name God in it is not forcing a religion on that child. She/He can still go home and pray with you or not pray with you if the case is that you are atheist. I can say the name Allah but I am not forcing Islam upon myself. If you don't like the Christian references then find another country that doesn't have a Christian background and history. The US does not force you to become something you aren't though, contrary to your thinking, and therefore they are not respecting an establishment of religion, even when putting "God" in places you do not like. You are still free.
People like you would be at the front of the line screaming Bloody Murder if the pledge were changed to "one nation, under Allah"
well, it isn't preventing me from exercising my own faith like atheists seem to think Christians are trying to do to them. However Islam isn't the original faith of this country and if you are going to change the pledge to reflect something other than what the FOunding Fathers had in mind then I would be screaming bloody murder. If you change the religion then what stops you from changing everything else? Or maybe that's your whole goal: to rewrite the whole thing to your liking. That liking being no religion whatsoever. Well sorry, but you can't do that. I won't say it can't happen but THAT would be unconstitutional. The founding fathers just did not want the gov't to be able to create laws that would prevent you from exercising your religion over mine. You can practice Islam if u want and if it was the original faith of this country then it wouldn't hurt me because I can still practice my own and I still hav ethe same freedom I do with the "under Allah" phrase in place. If you force someone to say the pledge it's endorsing patriotism. If you force them to say it with a specific religion involved you are not respecting a religion because you are not denying any others. But the founding faith was Christianity so that's why it's "under God".
The Constitution states that Congress shall not make a law that respects the establishment of a religion. The Founding Fathers just didn't want Congress to make a law that forced a religion upon you. The gov't is not saying you have to be Christian. You can still do whatever you want regardless of what religion you are. They are not supposed to prevent you from exercising your religion either even though some school districts try to do so. You can be a part of whatever religion you want without having a religion that involves God and still take part in elections and gov't benefits, etc. It is the Christian faith that this country was founded upon and the gov't is not forcing you to be another religion or preventing you from being an atheist. They may be endorsing Christianity but it's the original faith and it's not preventing you from doing anything like exercising your faith or lack thereof. So it is your problem if you dont agree with the original faith of the country and therefore laws based on that founding faith. If you remove God from the country then what is to stop you from allowing everything else to be changed? You can't change those properties of the Constitution you do not like. Your separation of church and state means that no one is allowed to have any religion in the government and I hate to tell you this but the Founding Fathers involved Christianity in their political lives and it still happens today. So just because its not your religion doesn't mean you can take it away from me because it is my religion. That's not what the separation is. It's freedom from opresssion and you aren't being opressed. If you think you are then go to dictionary.com to look up the definition of it. You are still allowed to do everything you want.
Telling children they can't have prayer at graduation is "preventing the free exercise thereof" but I don't hear anyone complaining about that do I?
By the way, if you don't like any occurrence of the word "God" then you better throw your money out the window, or better yet, give it to me.
The founding fathers worked hard to thwart what the majority wants.
Except that every time we vote its a majority rules situation...and yes, I know the electoral college vote is what really counts in the presidential elections but those people usually side with the majority anyway.
But America == democracy so if the majority wants God in the government and in public areas then shutup about it. Congressmen pray all the time before meetings and no one has a problem with it. For some reason some school systems have problems with kids leading their OWN prayer within the school. This is a free world. Kids can pray anywhere and anytime they want. Where is the freedom of religion in that? Well? It's little people like you that are somehow able to persuade courts to make landmark decisions instead of letting the public vote on it when the majority still wants it.
You have a wacked out view of bringing God into the situation. He is a headstone just like a father is to his family. It does not hurt that he is there. If you think having a public acceptance of God is bad then you have bigger issues to solve in your "personal and political world" outside the rest of society. It's always amazing to me how a Godless society is defended by people like you. He helps our personal lives and yet for some reason having a public acceptance of him is somehow disrespectful of ourselves? What's the difference between acceptance in public and in private? If anyone is disrespected it's Him because people like you are afraid of letting other people know you accept him. And no, the issue isn't making an active attempt to let other people know God is your God but it doesn't mean you should be afraid to admit it either. Terrorists don't have any problem letting us know they respect Allah. Are you ashamed of God?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Except that there is no law that states you have to say the pledge with the phrase "under God" and there is no law that states you even have to say the pledge anyway so they aren't respecting an establishment of religion because there was no law made. Anyway, they could argue that "God" is not referencing any particular God and children can treat it as they see fit. Why not let the CHILDREN decide anyway instead of the courts?
By the way, I don't suppose any one heard of children being taught how to pray to Allah in classes that teach Islam have they? I don't hear anyone complaining about that. Of course not, it's not Christian based. As long as it's anything but Christiantiy related then it's perfectly fine. Islam good, Christianity bad. That's America's new motto.
Also, don't look now but your money has the word GOD on it. Shhh, don't tell anyone. THey might complain.
Why buy this and say you are gaining a dvd burner? It uses DVD-RAM. That's the least compatible format you could use for burning DVDs. Not to mention the fact that format requires the use of caddies to hold the discs. The discs are expensive as well.
To display the next screen of files, I hit any key to continue, until all of the files in the directory have been listed (or I break, by pressing Ctrl-C)
I have the reverse problem. I DONT have a key that everyone talks about. Where is the ANY key located? I've never seen it on a keyboard in my life and yet people tell me to use it.
Now the guy who posted earlier about not having anything to look forward to in life can relish the thought the Wachowskis might make a parallel Matrix where the human computing grid is the reason for the machines putting us into a beowulf cluster.
An Austrian company called Comtarsia makes a logon client called Servolution Logon Client (up to version 3.0 now, 3.1 is coming soon which supports Active Directory features) that intercepts the CTRL ALT DEL sequence (using their own GINA) and allows the user to login to the system through their logon client and the main goal is to authenticate to Active Directory and a regular LDAP directory at the same time (2 authentications) with one (1) login process for the user. It works with Samba, OS/2, NT4.0 and as I said, v3.1 supports AD, group policies and domain logons. Warning for those who take interest in it...it has bugs (I've personally reported 2 already that will be fixed in 3.1), the documentation is not the greatest and the application itself has some text labels in German.
Is it legal for them to change the contract for the amount of bandwidth I can use at any time?
Comcast's policy has proven most controversial. The company's terms of service say only that users cannot "represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an unusually large burden on the network."
and "communicate" by "emitting electromagnetic energy." That's communication? Then lightning is communicating...
Scientists already have the public thinking that lightning got those little proteins to turn into amino acids and to spit out a human being after a few million years so in a scientist's mind lightning as a communication medium isn't too far fetched. The only problem is that lightning never did that for amino acids because the DNA structure of all life has never been "out in the wild" to start from scratch. It was created by God who didn't need to constantly update it to see what worked best.
Slashdot Mirror
Your rights are violated if the gov't endorses a religion? Why? Are you still not able to have freedom to practice your religion? Do you lose any rights to vote or have medical benefits applied to you? You do not lose your religion and you are not forced to change your religion so I do not see how your rights are violated.
The US gov't embraced Christianity many decades ago. There is a difference between embracing it and forcing the public to follow and embracing it to give those who share the same founding beliefs something to look toward to show the country keeps its foundations intact for one thing. This does NOT stop anyone else not sharing the same view from still practicing their views. No one forces a Catholic to go to a Baptist church and a Catholic does not mind if a Baptist church has a get-together for only Baptists followers. The Catholics chose their particular denomination and have to take the advantages and disadvantages along with it and UNDERSTAND that those exist and not just assume that the Baptists have to invite everyone to their get-togethers just because the Catholics don't want to feel left out or "oppressed" because someone else has a different view than them.
How many differnt brands of Christianity are there? Only 1 I thought. There is no "American" Christianity. THere is only Christianity. THe separation the COnstitution refers to is so that the gov't can not enforce a gov't run religion and prevent people from having rights and privilegs because they may not agree with that religion. The gov't is not doing that and therefore are meeting the separation. Endorsing a particular religion does not force you to practice that same religion, contrary to what you may believe. Now Iraq may do that or Iran or whatever but the US does not force you to become a member of any religion and punish you for not doing so in the form of political and social oppression you talk about. The reason Christian-related refernces are made is because this gov't was founded with a Christian related faith by God fearing and believing men. No Muslim or Hindu followers were involved in the founding of this country and if there were their beliefs have not been incorporated into any of aspect of this country in any meaningful way. I don't know where you get your history but the founding principles are Christian and Christians aren't selling out themselves.
Madison would pick up the fight again during the drafting of the First Amendment. As chairman of the House conference committee on the Bill of Rights, Madison's original draft was among the most ambitious: "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship...nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed...." Though somewhat less expansive in its protections, the final version--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" --clearly bears the Madison stamp.
reference for the above
That is the truth behind the Constituational phrase you think wants to make sure that the gov't does not mix church and state. The separation means the gov't can't force a religion upon you or deny you rights because of your religion. The US gov't is not doing that so don't say you are being oppressed or having my faith forced upon you. James Madison praised the separation of church and state but he didn't mean the gov't could not say ANYTHING on religion.
also happens to forbid the government from promoting atheism.
Ain't that a relief
When the government promotes monotheism it is religious opression of Native American beliefs. The constituion forbids it.
Oppression? what is stopping the Native Americans from still practicing their religion? They are not being prevented from doing any such thing. THey are not being persecuted for their polytheistic beliefs so where exactly does the oppression come in again?
"not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."-- Encyclopedia Brittanica
Nitpick: Not all of the Founding Fathers were made up of the first 6 Presidents of the US as there were more than 6 Founding Fathers for one thing. I'm sure there are some Presidents who aren't Christian although I'm sure there are very few.
How about George Washington? Oops, not Christian.
Yes he was. The phrase "under God," so much a part of our nation's tradition and so familiar as part of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, was used by George Washington when he learned that the United Colonies had declared themselves an independent nation.
John Adams maybe? Nope.
Not really but he did believe in having religion. He recognized the abuses, large and small, that religious belief lends itself to, but he also believed that religion could be a force for good in individual lives and in society at large. His extensive reading (especially in the classics), led him to believe that this view applied not only to Christianity, but to all religions.
Perhaps Benjamin Franklin? No.
You aren't quite right. I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and tho' some of the dogmas of that persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation, etc., appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and I early absented myself from the public assemblies of the sect, Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and govern'd it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter.
Maybe you meant Thomas Jefferson? Sorry.
sorry, u are wrong "To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."
Or James Madison? Nope.
Does not say either way but as you can see Madison says what you people can't seem to figure out in the phrase you often quote from the Constitution. He does not want you to lose your rights just because of your religion. It does not mean that the gov't can't have or make religious references. As chairman of the House conference committee on the Bill of Rights, Madison's original draft was among the most ambitious: "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship...nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed...." Though somewhat less expansive in its protections, the final version--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" --clearly bears the Madison stamp.
I would object because Satanism isn't the founding religion of this country and therefore for 1) it has no relevance and 2) it is wrong to use that wording when Christianity is the prevalent religion as well as the founding religion of the country so it wouldn't make sense to have wording about Satan.
Just because I say yes does not mean I'm admitting oppression. You are obviously thinking you are oppressed and that is a major problem that I have because being oppressed means you are being prevented from exercising your own religion (or lack thereof if that is the case) and/or you are being forced to exercise a religion not of your preference (Christianity) or maybe even being prevented from having certain rights or privileges because your religion does not agree with the governments. YOu are not being prevented and you are not being forced to do anything and you are not being denied any rights or privileges so how are you being oppressed? Because none of those would happen to me if it said "under Satan" instead of "under God" then I'm not being oppressed either. My only objection is what I said above in the first paragraph.
I honestly can't think of why I would not object to the Satan version however I can think of a reason why the "under God" part is nice to have. It reinforces the people's faith of this country in God who overlooks this country and protects it (although with increasing lack of trust and faith in God why should He protect it as much as He used to?). The main point here is that you are going to say that your faith isn't with God. Well, that is obviously your choice but the main faith of this country is Christianity and if you feel "opressed" or left out then I can't help it. It's like buying a SUV when all your friends of minivans and then complaining that a mutual friend of the SUV crowd and minivan crowd only invited the people who owned minivans to a party because there were more people of those type and the mutual friend though more people would make the party better. So you feel oppressed because you weren't invited because you own an SUV. The point being that is your choice and you have to deal with the fact that you are part of the minority and have to deal with all the advantages and disadvantages of that. The minivan owners have to deal with the disadvantages of the SUV people callng them weenies because they got a minivan instead of an SUV.
This country was founded by people who wisely kept religion in government but wisely made sure that the government did not pass laws forcing any particular religion on the populous (respecting an established religion). This is why the Pilgrims came over here: so they could pick any religion they want without the gov't forcing it on them. It doesn't mean the gov't can't prefer a religion but it doesn't mean the gov't can force that same religion on the public. You may think you are being forced to be Christian by what you are hearing/seeing but you are not. You have the same rights and privileges by choosing to be atheist or whatever. Nobody is trying to take your religion away. You keep forgetting one point: Christians founded this country and based this country on a religious foundation. You still have to swear on the Bible when testifying in court. Your money has God's name on it. If your religion differs from that view then fine but for those people (the majority who agrees with the founding religion) who like to see their religion reflected in public institutions and locations then with you being of different religion and still within this country you have to deal with that type of situation. Just because that religion is reflected in public and political situations does not at all prevent you from exercising your religion.
Bottom line: You just don't like seeing someone else's (dare I say anyone's?) religion in a public/political atmosphere and want to stifle it even when it is in no way infringing on yours.
Sorry for the long response.
Majority still rules in Congress when the Congressman vote on the bills. If there are more yays than nays then the bill is passed on.
But your blanket "shutup" speaks volumes about your disrespect for the individuality and good citizenship that the laws of our nation encourage.
I just get tired of people taking away my religion from public places. Yes I can still practice it but it's the founding faith of this country and people want to get rid of it because they think the founding fathers wanted it that way. The founding fathers didn't want there to be a state run gov't and there isn't one. The gov't is making reference to christianity simply because its the faith of this country and if you disagree with that faith then so be it but don't take it away from me or this country simply b/c you don't like it. It's not hurting you. The main point being, we can both practice our own but mine happens to be the original faith so that is what should stay. Taking out religion is not what the founding fathers said. THey did not want religious oppression to rule and it's not but you think it is for some reason.
Forcing your child to say the pledge with the name God in it is not forcing a religion on that child. She/He can still go home and pray with you or not pray with you if the case is that you are atheist. I can say the name Allah but I am not forcing Islam upon myself. If you don't like the Christian references then find another country that doesn't have a Christian background and history. The US does not force you to become something you aren't though, contrary to your thinking, and therefore they are not respecting an establishment of religion, even when putting "God" in places you do not like. You are still free.
People like you would be at the front of the line screaming Bloody Murder if the pledge were changed to "one nation, under Allah"
well, it isn't preventing me from exercising my own faith like atheists seem to think Christians are trying to do to them. However Islam isn't the original faith of this country and if you are going to change the pledge to reflect something other than what the FOunding Fathers had in mind then I would be screaming bloody murder. If you change the religion then what stops you from changing everything else? Or maybe that's your whole goal: to rewrite the whole thing to your liking. That liking being no religion whatsoever. Well sorry, but you can't do that. I won't say it can't happen but THAT would be unconstitutional. The founding fathers just did not want the gov't to be able to create laws that would prevent you from exercising your religion over mine. You can practice Islam if u want and if it was the original faith of this country then it wouldn't hurt me because I can still practice my own and I still hav ethe same freedom I do with the "under Allah" phrase in place. If you force someone to say the pledge it's endorsing patriotism. If you force them to say it with a specific religion involved you are not respecting a religion because you are not denying any others. But the founding faith was Christianity so that's why it's "under God".
The Constitution states that Congress shall not make a law that respects the establishment of a religion. The Founding Fathers just didn't want Congress to make a law that forced a religion upon you. The gov't is not saying you have to be Christian. You can still do whatever you want regardless of what religion you are. They are not supposed to prevent you from exercising your religion either even though some school districts try to do so. You can be a part of whatever religion you want without having a religion that involves God and still take part in elections and gov't benefits, etc. It is the Christian faith that this country was founded upon and the gov't is not forcing you to be another religion or preventing you from being an atheist. They may be endorsing Christianity but it's the original faith and it's not preventing you from doing anything like exercising your faith or lack thereof. So it is your problem if you dont agree with the original faith of the country and therefore laws based on that founding faith. If you remove God from the country then what is to stop you from allowing everything else to be changed? You can't change those properties of the Constitution you do not like. Your separation of church and state means that no one is allowed to have any religion in the government and I hate to tell you this but the Founding Fathers involved Christianity in their political lives and it still happens today. So just because its not your religion doesn't mean you can take it away from me because it is my religion. That's not what the separation is. It's freedom from opresssion and you aren't being opressed. If you think you are then go to dictionary.com to look up the definition of it. You are still allowed to do everything you want.
Telling children they can't have prayer at graduation is "preventing the free exercise thereof" but I don't hear anyone complaining about that do I?
By the way, if you don't like any occurrence of the word "God" then you better throw your money out the window, or better yet, give it to me.
The founding fathers worked hard to thwart what the majority wants.
Except that every time we vote its a majority rules situation...and yes, I know the electoral college vote is what really counts in the presidential elections but those people usually side with the majority anyway.
But America == democracy so if the majority wants God in the government and in public areas then shutup about it. Congressmen pray all the time before meetings and no one has a problem with it. For some reason some school systems have problems with kids leading their OWN prayer within the school. This is a free world. Kids can pray anywhere and anytime they want. Where is the freedom of religion in that? Well? It's little people like you that are somehow able to persuade courts to make landmark decisions instead of letting the public vote on it when the majority still wants it.
You have a wacked out view of bringing God into the situation. He is a headstone just like a father is to his family. It does not hurt that he is there. If you think having a public acceptance of God is bad then you have bigger issues to solve in your "personal and political world" outside the rest of society. It's always amazing to me how a Godless society is defended by people like you. He helps our personal lives and yet for some reason having a public acceptance of him is somehow disrespectful of ourselves? What's the difference between acceptance in public and in private? If anyone is disrespected it's Him because people like you are afraid of letting other people know you accept him. And no, the issue isn't making an active attempt to let other people know God is your God but it doesn't mean you should be afraid to admit it either. Terrorists don't have any problem letting us know they respect Allah. Are you ashamed of God?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Except that there is no law that states you have to say the pledge with the phrase "under God" and there is no law that states you even have to say the pledge anyway so they aren't respecting an establishment of religion because there was no law made. Anyway, they could argue that "God" is not referencing any particular God and children can treat it as they see fit. Why not let the CHILDREN decide anyway instead of the courts?
By the way, I don't suppose any one heard of children being taught how to pray to Allah in classes that teach Islam have they? I don't hear anyone complaining about that. Of course not, it's not Christian based. As long as it's anything but Christiantiy related then it's perfectly fine. Islam good, Christianity bad. That's America's new motto.
Also, don't look now but your money has the word GOD on it. Shhh, don't tell anyone. THey might complain.
Why buy this and say you are gaining a dvd burner? It uses DVD-RAM. That's the least compatible format you could use for burning DVDs. Not to mention the fact that format requires the use of caddies to hold the discs. The discs are expensive as well.
What's a movie without a $10 bucket of popcorn and a 7.50 keg of cherry coke!?!
A movie that leaves you enough money to pay your mom back for driving you around that night.
For one, the smell a book can have is something i'll never get out of a piece of electronics.
You mean the Athlon burning up in the back of the device against your fingertips doesn't provide the same experience?
educating our children?
You mean like how to put a condom on a banana and how to find the right girls at strip clubs to spend your money on? (college level credit of course)
why not winamp 2.x?
To display the next screen of files, I hit any key to continue, until all of the files in the directory have been listed (or I break, by pressing Ctrl-C)
I have the reverse problem. I DONT have a key that everyone talks about. Where is the ANY key located? I've never seen it on a keyboard in my life and yet people tell me to use it.
Now the guy who posted earlier about not having anything to look forward to in life can relish the thought the Wachowskis might make a parallel Matrix where the human computing grid is the reason for the machines putting us into a beowulf cluster.
Don't say that. Only my girlfriend is allowed to play with my mind like that.
An Austrian company called Comtarsia makes a logon client called Servolution Logon Client (up to version 3.0 now, 3.1 is coming soon which supports Active Directory features) that intercepts the CTRL ALT DEL sequence (using their own GINA) and allows the user to login to the system through their logon client and the main goal is to authenticate to Active Directory and a regular LDAP directory at the same time (2 authentications) with one (1) login process for the user. It works with Samba, OS/2, NT4.0 and as I said, v3.1 supports AD, group policies and domain logons. Warning for those who take interest in it...it has bugs (I've personally reported 2 already that will be fixed in 3.1), the documentation is not the greatest and the application itself has some text labels in German.
Is it legal for them to change the contract for the amount of bandwidth I can use at any time?
Comcast's policy has proven most controversial. The company's terms of service say only that users cannot "represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an unusually large burden on the network."
When they word it that way, yes, it is legal.
and "communicate" by "emitting electromagnetic energy." That's communication? Then lightning is communicating...
Scientists already have the public thinking that lightning got those little proteins to turn into amino acids and to spit out a human being after a few million years so in a scientist's mind lightning as a communication medium isn't too far fetched. The only problem is that lightning never did that for amino acids because the DNA structure of all life has never been "out in the wild" to start from scratch. It was created by God who didn't need to constantly update it to see what worked best.
yeah, because the whole point of getting married, for men, is in-house pussy.
the whole point for some women is the same reason.
oh man, you are good. How did you know it was going to be MS Bob's pet cat that would replace him eventually? I want YOU to be my psychic.