Palin's unmarried teen daughter is pregnant

[camoor]

In a day of stunning disclosures, John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, said Monday her 17-year-old unmarried daughter was five months pregnant, and it was revealed an attorney was hired to defend the governor in a probe into the firing of her public safety commissioner.
The revelations threatened to steal any remaining thunder from Day One of the Republican National Convention, which already was overshadowed by Hurricane Gustav — and brought unwanted attention to the 44-year-old governor, a self-described "hockey mom" with little experience on the national stage.
The GOP convention had already been scaled back because of the hurricane, and just three days after McCain named Palin as his vice presidential running mate. Coming after the randomness of Gustav, the revelations added to the sense of unscriptedness hanging over the convention.
"Life happens," said McCain adviser Steve Schmidt, talking about the pregnancy story.
"An American family," added colleague Mark Salter.
In a brief respite from partisanship, Democratic rival Barack Obama weighed in: "I think people's families are off limits and people's children are especially off limits."


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrhFOsVwX9jtDyUhy3zKCBVms8tgD92U7EGG0

[ITDEFX]

Between this, the hurricane and the Republic Convention ... it really must be a slow news day :roll:

Who the fuck cares if she's pregnant?

[RAMSTORIA]

She must be a liberal ;)

[crunchb3rry]

Well...we know the girl couldn't get an abortion even if she wanted to. She's gotta shit that kid out to win over her mom's base. The campaign organizers are going to tell her (and her belly) to sit backstage when families go out for post-debate photo ops.

[ITDEFX]

Well...we know the girl couldn't get an abortion even if she wanted to. She's gotta shit that kid out to win over her mom's base. The campaign organizers are going to tell her (and her belly) to sit backstage when families go out for post-debate photo ops.


This.

[camoor]

She must be a liberal ;)

Can you imagine if roles were reversed and Obama had a teenage daughter that was pregnant? Already Fox news can't get enough of calling Michelle Obama "baby momma" (and Michelle Obama is most definately not a baby momma).

[JolietJake]

I love how they try to brush it off like it's just life, yet i guarantee the GOP would have a field day if Obama had a unwed, pregnant teenage daughter.

It would just be another example of how liberal families have no morals or some other BS.

[Msut77]

Between this, the hurricane and the Republic Convention ... it really must be a slow news day :roll:

Who the fuck cares if she's pregnant?

It shows how thorough the McCain campaign was in vetting her.

[thrustbucket]

I love how they try to brush it off like it's just life, yet i guarantee the GOP would have a field day if Obama had a unwed, pregnant teenage daughter.

It would just be another example of how liberal families have no morals or some other BS.

You can hope. But I doubt it.


Don't we already have several pages of digital high-fives-over-nothing in another thread?
We need more? Cary on then.

[E-Z-B]

She must have been enrolled in an abstinance-only program. :lol:

[dmaul1114]

I love how they try to brush it off like it's just life, yet i guarantee the GOP would have a field day if Obama had a unwed, pregnant teenage daughter.


But thankfully Obama is bigger than that and denounced bloggers etc. trying to polticize this (as discussed in the other thread, but I'll post this here anyway).

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/01/obama-palin%E2%80%99s-family-off-limits/


MONROE, Michigan (CNN) – Barack Obama told reporters firmly that families are off-limits in this campaign, reacting to news that Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is five months pregnant.

“Let me be as clear as possible,” said Obama, “I think people’s families are off-limits and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin’s performance as governor, or her potential performance as a vice president.”

Obama said reporters should “back off these kinds of stories” and noted that he was born to an 18 year-old mother.

“How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that’s off-limits.”

The Illinois senator became aggravated when asked about rumors on liberal blogs speculating that Palin’s fifth child - Trig - is actually her daughter Bristol’s. A Reuters report Monday quotes a senior McCain aide saying that Obama’s name is in some of posts, “in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their 'campaign of change,’”

“I am offended by that statement,” Obama shot back, not letting the reporter finish his question. “There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us.”

“We don’t go after people’s families,” Obama said. “We don’t get them involved in the politics. It’s not appropriate and it’s not relevant. Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought that there was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they’d be fired.”

[JolietJake]

You can hope. But I doubt it.


Don't we already have several pages of digital high-fives-over-nothing in another thread?
We need more? Cary on then.Alright fine, but i know that fox news and other conservative media outlets would love it. The family first people would also feel pretty good about themselves.

[camoor]

She must be a liberal ;)

To be honest, I don't get this one.

Isn't the stereotype of a liberal that they use contraceptives, and if the unlikely does happen, they consider all of their options?

[thrustbucket]

To be honest, I don't get this one.

Isn't the stereotype of a liberal that they use contraceptives, and if the unlikely does happen, they consider all of their options?

I think they referring to the liberal stereotype of fucking anything that moves because it's their body, that's how they define freedom, and it gives the finger to all the god-loving authorities they despise.

[Nogib]

Great, just what the world needs, another Jamie Lynn Spears :rofl:

[mykevermin]

I think they referring to the liberal stereotype of fucking anything that moves because it's their body, that's how they define freedom, and it gives the finger to all the god-loving authorities they despise.



Don't forget that we high-five each other every time someone gets an abortion.

[bigdaddy]

Isn't it a sin to be a whore?

I would like to be the first one to stone her.

[JolietJake]

Isn't it a sin to be a whore?

I would like to be the first one to stone here.
And i'm sure that Pat Robertson will get right on the case by making sure everyone knows what a whore she is.:roll::lol:

[bigdaddy]

And i'm sure that Pat Robertson will get right on the case by making sure everyone knows what a whore she is.:roll::lol:

That would be nice, he is my personal hero. :lol:

[HotShotX]

Isn't it a sin to be a whore?

I would like to be the first one to stone her.

Having underage sex doesn't make you a whore...having sex for money makes you a whore. Doing it for free but with multiple people makes you a slut.

Ask your mother.

~HotShotX

[Koggit]

Having unwed sex is a "grave sin" according to the Bible.

[KingBroly]

Where's Entertainment Tonight when you really need them?

Honestly, I don't see the point in discussing this, even though some people think it's funny to laugh in the faces of others.

[mykevermin]

some people think it's funny to laugh in the faces of others' narrow minded, disproven, and idiotic ideologies that they want to foist on the rest of the nation blowing up in their faces.

In so many words.

[bigdaddy]

Having underage sex doesn't make you a whore...having sex for money makes you a whore. Doing it for free but with multiple people makes you a slut.

Ask your mother.

~HotShotX


Shhhh.... I'm trying to start another rumour that she is a whore and having sex for money......

with her brother!

Too far?

No one would give a shit but her family is a holier than thou fuckerfest that I want to slap.

[distgfx]

Ouch, just heard about this today. This is gonna be one hell of a blow for McCain and Palin. Oh well, I couldn't give a shit less myself. Good publicity for Obama making that statement though.

[Ikohn4ever]

well looks like her mom's backing of abstinence only really payed off.

[ananag112]

This could have been a much bigger story if it wasn't for the hurricane. I bet they announced it yesterday thinking it would get passed over to cover more important events.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

This is America! We don't like hard news.

[Dead of Knight]

Article about the father:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051519/Proud-redneck-The-teenager-expecting-baby-Sarah-Palins-17-year-old-daughter.html

The teenager expecting a baby with the 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin calls himself 'a f***ing redneck' on his MySpace page.

Levi Johnston, 18, a high-school hockey player, is engaged to Bristol Palin, whose pregnancy was revealed to the Republican party convention just days after her 44-year-old mother was picked as John McCain's running mate.

He is the high-school sweetheart of the Alaska governor's daughter and used his home page to admit having a girlfriend, but said: 'I don't want kids.'
Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin's baby.
Bristol Palin,

The hockey player with the Wasilla Warriors in Alaska was said to have made no secret of the pregnancy in his home town.

On the page he also says: 'But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s*** and just chillin' I guess'

He added: 'Ya f *** with me I'll kick [your] ass'

Johnston has also been in trouble with the law, for taking king salmon from a lake out of season.

Anddd said myspace page, which is now set to private:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=410267077

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[HuBu]

But thankfully Obama is bigger than that and denounced bloggers etc. trying to polticize this (as discussed in the other thread, but I'll post this here anyway).

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/01/obama-palin%E2%80%99s-family-off-limits/

Obama has nothing to say because there isn't anything he can say that won't come back to him. just like how someone from his staff made a comment about Palin's inexperience. Obama can't say that because he doesn't have any either.

The girl is pregnant, wow...there are so many teenage girls in this country that are pregnant. was britney spear's sister's pregnancy a big thing? it died out within days.

[dmaul1114]

Obama has nothing to say because there isn't anything he can say that won't come back to him.

He could have just said "no comment" or "I don't comment on people's family issues."

He didn't have to so firmly denounce the deplorable tactics and ask the media to back off of such stories. He could have just said no comment and let them continue to do his "dirty work" for him as Bush etc. did with the swiftboaters, or Hillary did with the Rev. Wright story etc.

Firmly denouncing it shows he meant what he said about needing politics to get away from those kind of personal attacks.

[HuBu]

you can just say "No" or smile while saying "No"

plus, you think the media is going to give a damn whether Obama denounced it or not.

they will use attacks when its to their benefits, just like how Obama lashed out at McCain when answered Rick Warren's question on who he thinks it rich. or the number of homes McCain has.

[lilboo]

I like how they are all of a sudden engaged :rofl: You know, basically if this boy calls it off he'll be killed.

[camoor]

I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s*** and just chillin' I guess...Ya f *** with me I'll kick [your] ass

Is this the baby's father or Dubya?

[thrustbucket]

Is this the baby's father or Dubya?

No. Just a typical 18 year old male with the privilege of growing up in a rural area.

[Ruined]

Ouch, just heard about this today. This is gonna be one hell of a blow for McCain and Palin.

From what I've read its actually giving them a big boost with the evangelical base because it proves Palin's conservative pro-life stance (McCain is basically a pro-choice moderate, so they can't get excited over him).

[distgfx]

Is this the baby's father or Dubya?

It's like a trend to make fun of Bush at every possible moment. I can't go anywhere without seeing a Bush joke cracked these days. Regardless, the father's a dumbshit and I can't believe his seed has been spread.

From what I've read its actually giving them a big boost with the evangelical base because it proves Palin's conservative pro-life stance (McCain is basically a pro-choice moderate, so they can't get excited over him).

Well, that's definitely a good way to spin it in their favor.

[HuBu]

whats sad is people saying Palin is unfit for the VP position because shes going to be leaving her daughter and her child whom has down syndrome. some guy actually tried pushing the point that Palin should have aborted the child when she knew the baby was high risk for DS. he was like "Poor child has down syndrome."

[dmaul1114]

you can just say "No" or smile while saying "No"

plus, you think the media is going to give a damn whether Obama denounced it or not.

they will use attacks when its to their benefits, just like how Obama lashed out at McCain when answered Rick Warren's question on who he thinks it rich. or the number of homes McCain has.

It shows he is firmly sticking to his word, and I applaud him for that.

And those other attacks weren't inappropriate personal attacks. McCain had tried to paint Obama as an elitist who can't relate to average people. So of course they had to jump on him not knowing how many homes he owns, as it paints him as a hypocrite for calling Obama and elitist and pretty much negated that line of attack.

It's fine to make attacks on the issues, or two show you opponents attacks were hypocritical. It's not ok to drag peoples family and personal issues out into the open for political gain when they have nothing directly to do with the issues at hand.

[HuBu]

It shows he is firmly sticking to his word, and I applaud him for that.

And those other attacks weren't inappropriate personal attacks. McCain had tried to paint Obama as an elitist who can't relate to average people. So of course they had to jump on him not knowing how many homes he owns, as it paints him as a hypocrite for calling Obama and elitist and pretty much negated that line of attack.

It's fine to make attacks on the issues, or two show you opponents attacks were hypocritical. It's not ok to drag peoples family and personal issues out into the open for political gain when they have nothing directly to do with the issues at hand.

He can't relate to the average people. He is trying to play both sides. Obama is always talking about his faith in Christ. Yet when they asked him about abortion, he supports the woman's choice to choose. When they asked him about marriage, he answers that it is the union between man and woman, but i don't want to infringe on civil rights. plainly, he believes in one thing yet does another because he doesn't want to alienate others. obama can't be too black where he scares the white voters, and cant be too white and alienate the black voters.

[bigdaddy]

You can be against abortion and be in favor of a woman's right to choice. You can also be in favor of man-wife "Leave It to Beaver" marriage and still think the government has no place saying who can and cannot get married.

[dmaul1114]

He can't relate to the average people. He is trying to play both sides. Obama is always talking about his faith in Christ. Yet when they asked him about abortion, he supports the woman's choice to choose. When they asked him about marriage, he answers that it is the union between man and woman, but i don't want to infringe on civil rights. plainly, he believes in one thing yet does another because he doesn't want to alienate others. obama can't be too black where he scares the white voters, and cant be too white and alienate the black voters.

This is just nonsense.

One can be religious, and support a woman's right to choose. The bible is archaic and not every church, much less every person supports every stupid thing it says.

One can think gay marriage is morally "wrong", but acknowledge that it's not the government business as the above poster said.

He doesn't believe one thing and say another. He simply doesn't see the world in black and white terms, not believe that his personal beliefs should be legally forced on other people by the government. Morals have no place in law--unless the laws are regrettably necessary to prevent a person's rights from being oppressed by people trying to force their morals on others.

You can be against abortion and be in favor of a woman's right to choice. You can also be in favor of man-wife "Leave It to Beaver" marriage and still think the government has no place saying who can and cannot get married.

Exactly. Those reviews I can respect and I agree with them.

We shouldn't need legislation on these things, but it's forced to be pursued because the republicans are trying so hard to outlaw a woman's right to choose, ban gay marriage etc.

This shouldn't be government business, but unfortunately it's became government business as it's better to have laws guaranteeing these rights rather than laws banning them.

[Mr. 420]

Who gives a F
Talk about something that matters. Most 17 year old girls are skanks.

[Jesus_S_Preston]

Um...

...is she hot?

[Callandor]

Article about the father:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051519/Proud-redneck-The-teenager-expecting-baby-Sarah-Palins-17-year-old-daughter.html

Anddd said myspace page, which is now set to private:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=410267077

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Even better, now his page has been deleted.

Considering it said "Fuck the media" after it was set to private, I wonder why it was deleted...

[Pookymeister]

i heard someone talking at work about some theory that the 4 month old kid is really the kid of the 17 year old daughter and that mommy Palin just pretended it was her's.

[dmaul1114]

i heard someone talking at work about some theory that the 4 month old kid is really the kid of the 17 year old daughter and that mommy Palin just pretended it was her's.

Old news, and the daughters current pregnancy disproves that theory as she's 5 months pregnant and as you say the baby is 4 months old.

That was a big part of the reason they came out with the pregnant daughter story so fast was to dispel that blog rumor.

[homeland]

Just glad to hear the word "decided" in the press release. I would have thought that as anti-baby killing there wouldn't have been a decision to make.

and why wasn't she on the pill... would have thought all teenage girls would be popping those now a days.

[dmaul1114]

and why wasn't she on the pill... would have thought all teenage girls would be popping those now a days.

Not one's with abstinence only mothers.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

My daughter will be on the pill. No point in her getting knocked up because somebody rapes her.

[homeland]

Not one's with abstinence only mothers.

That worked out great didn't it!

[Dead of Knight]

Even better, now his page has been deleted.

Considering it said "Fuck the media" after it was set to private, I wonder why it was deleted...

The GOP?

[Mr. 420]

I thought Palin was against birth control?
She should have known better to shit out a kid at that age. Women that old aren't supposed to have kids and now they have a downsyndromed baby because of it.:roll:
The daughter is kind of hot.

[MSI Magus]

He can't relate to the average people. He is trying to play both sides. Obama is always talking about his faith in Christ. Yet when they asked him about abortion, he supports the woman's choice to choose. When they asked him about marriage, he answers that it is the union between man and woman, but i don't want to infringe on civil rights. plainly, he believes in one thing yet does another because he doesn't want to alienate others. obama can't be too black where he scares the white voters, and cant be too white and alienate the black voters.

God your as bad as thrustbucket. You ever think that maybe some of us can think outside of our own small worlds? I know thats a hard thing especially for conservatives to understand....but some of us can do it. I get harped on all the time for saying you can objectively view quality for something in a game....but I take that stand in real life too. You can take yourself outside your own views to see the other side or even admit the other side might or probably is right.

I think abortion is wrong....but support a womans right to choice(hate this freaking issue). I am uncomfortable with the idea of Gay Marriage. Yet support it full heartedly because its not against the constitution nor is it anything that hurts me or America so I shouldnt stand in their way because of my own fears. Obama gets accused all the time of being two faced on the issue. Truth is I think the man needs to take more stands and make things more clear. I think his taking McCains $5 million is rich response is disgusting and annoy and so are many other things he has done. However, on MOST issues I feel he is an honest genuine person that is just like me....someone that gets himself in trouble for thinking reasonably and philosophically about many things vs doing like most ignorant Americans and instantly going with his gut and stating his own ignorant opinion must be the right way of doing things.

You can say what you want, but ill take someone that over thinks things any day over someone like McCain who like Bush obviously judges things off his gut ad instantly responds. He isnt even president yet and he has already made major blunders not only in his own campaign(Palin alone was moronic but the list is huge)but also on subjects like Russia and Iran where he could have seriously hurt us.

[thrustbucket]

God your as bad as thrustbucket.

Lol.
How is that?

You either don't read my posts, or don't understand them, as I don't disagree with you much. Or maybe I need to dumb them down further.... Oh well.

[dmaul1114]

You can take yourself outside your own views to see the other side or even admit the other side might or probably is right.


The real key is to not define your thinking as being on a "side." Look at each issue individual, search your morals and values for social issues, your knowledge of what is best for the country on practical issues and come to a stance on each.

For most there will probably be patterns that result from this that are closer to one of the parties, be it democrat, republican, libertarian etc., but it's not being two faced to have stances on some issues that are in line with one party and stances on others that are aligned with a different party.

That just shows you are thinking independently and not being a blind sheep that just follows the party line on everything without doing any real independent thinking or soul searching.

[camoor]

I think abortion is wrong....but support a womans right to choice(hate this freaking issue). I am uncomfortable with the idea of Gay Marriage. Yet support it full heartedly because its not against the constitution nor is it anything that hurts me or America so I shouldnt stand in their way because of my own fears.

See - I'm alot more laissez-faire in attitude but I respect your opinions. Why can't more of the conservatives have the decency to leave the rights of the people alone - why do they feel the need to ban behaviors that will never even affect their lives?

[thrustbucket]

See - I'm alot more laissez-faire in attitude but I respect your opinions. Why can't more of the conservatives have the decency to leave the rights of the people alone - why do they feel the need to ban behaviors that will never even affect their lives?

They typically don't.

Abortion, to them, is not about banning someone's right, it's about protecting the right of the one getting killed without doing anything wrong. You can disagree with that view if you want, but don't make it sound like their goal is to take away rights when from their pov they are doing the opposite.

Gay Rights, yes that's true. That is almost entirely religious driven. Although most conservatives I know simply don't want the government involved in people's personal lives and relationships period. Until recently, it hasn't been an issue for them to make a stink about because "marriage" is not an issue commonly challenged politically.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, please list some more "behaviors" that conservatives want to "ban" that don't affect others.

[MSI Magus]

Lol.
How is that?

You either don't read my posts, or don't understand them, as I don't disagree with you much. Or maybe I need to dumb them down further.... Oh well.

Like iv shown and said. You post links on things like global warming that flip flop on the issue then act like its a legit source. Everything you say is pro right and anti left. And as my post which you ignored or disregarded in the RNC showed you talk great about the RNC and Palins speach while you disregaded Obamas.

You only see and hear what you want to.

dmaul thats essentially what I do. Unlike thrust who try to claim moderacy I really am. I lean a little to the left and openly admit that. But when it comes to derming how to vote or who to support I dont just follow my own blind ignorant views. I try and ponder through the situation.

[thrustbucket]

Like iv shown and said. You post links on things like global warming that flip flop on the issue then act like its a legit source. Everything you say is pro right and anti left. And as my post which you ignored or disregarded in the RNC showed you talk great about the RNC and Palins speach while you disregaded Obamas.
Well this is no place for petty inaccurate personal attacks, but you couldn't be more wrong. Show me where I disregarded Obama's speach.
Show me where I defended Pallin or McCain. All I did was share articles for discussion. For the record, I was very unimpressed with her speech. I didn't hear anything there I wanted to hear other than a little bit about energy. The rest was more of the same I've come to despise from Republicans.

I did the same for global warming. I was not arguing any "position" on global warming so your inept knee-jerk analysis of me is assanine.

You only see and hear what you want to.
Maybe. But seeing how poorly you comprehended several of my posts and points and made vast assumptions about links, It's clear the same could be said about you.

dmaul thats essentially what I do. Unlike thrust who try to claim moderacy I really am. I lean a little to the left and openly admit that. But when it comes to derming how to vote or who to support I dont just follow my own blind ignorant views. I try and ponder through the situation.
You just said exactly what almost everyone here, including myself, believes about themselves. Obviously doesn't make it true though, does it?

[Msut77]

MSI thrust just makes shit up, he will say absolutely anything and forget what he said within minutes.

Just ignore him.

[MSI Magus]

Well this is no place for petty inaccurate personal attacks, but you couldn't be more wrong. Show me where I disregarded Obama's speach.
Show me where I defended Pallin or McCain. All I did was share articles for discussion. For the record, I was very unimpressed with her speech. I didn't hear anything there I wanted to hear other than a little bit about energy. The rest was more of the same I've come to despise from Republicans.

I did the same for global warming. I was not arguing any "position" on global warming so your inept knee-jerk analysis of me is assanine.


Maybe. But seeing how poorly you comprehended several of my posts and points and made vast assumptions about links, It's clear the same could be said about you.


You just said exactly what almost everyone here, including myself, believes about themselves. Obviously doesn't make it true though, does it?

Im not even going to make a long post. On Global warming I showed how the "articles" you posted flip flopped on the issue(which you ignored and just kept whining about how the issue isnt resolved)and then I pointed out that while the second article seemed to atleast have some scientific data in it it was posted on a site that ended the article with crap mocking liberals and anyone that believes in global warming. You ignored the fact that your articles were junk and biased. Again keeping this short because no matter what I say as most closet conservatives hiding behind the moderate or libertarian lable nowdays you wont change here is what you said about Palins speach.

At least one UK media outlet thought her speech was "stunning" and "popped Obama's Balloon". How much that is true, or not, is likely dependent on how much you love Obama and hate Republicans (as witnessed by preliminary posting in this thread). But I find it a lot more interesting what the foreign media thinks, since what they think of us seems so important to so many today.

You probably wont even see whats wrong with it. But you clearly attack the left and anyone that disliked her speech. As I said you are so owned by the Republican party I wouldn't be surprised if your ass has a Dubya was here tattoo above your crack. Face it, you are a joke to anyone that isnt exaclty as biased as you. The sad thing is you obviously have a political knoweldge and an extreamly intelligent mind.....you just are so far to the right and so blind to the fact that you are...that you say such ignorant and biased things.

Edit- And you can say what you want that im just convincing myself that im going through a fair and rational method to come to descions. If you look at my posts you can clearly see me saying negative things about the party im voting for. Somethign you rarely see you and others do. You can clearly see me saying I feel strongly about an issue yet vote the opposite of what I feel because its what rational. Again not something you do. Everything you do is far to the right and in line with their policies. Again you have been shown to be wrong.

[MSI Magus]

MSI thrust just makes shit up, he will say absolutely anything and forget what he said within minutes.

Just ignore him.

I plan to after this post. Iv wasted far more time on him then I should have. I just cant believe someone can be so smart....yet so ignorant and biased.

[Msut77]

I plan to after this post. Iv wasted far more time on him then I should have. I just cant believe someone can be so smart....yet so ignorant and biased.

I think he lives in his own little world with very little human interaction.

[dmaul1114]

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, please list some more "behaviors" that conservatives want to "ban" that don't affect others.

I don't think it's just banning. It's just attempting to legislate morals in general that grates on my.

Trying to ban abortion and gay marriage, gay adoption etc.
Trying to ban flag burning
Trying to ban sex education in schools and teach abstinence only
Trying to get organized, led prayer in schools
Trying to ban teaching of evolution (less of that in present) or require creationism be taught
Trying to ban porn, porn stores, strip clubs etc.

Just on down the line. The government should not be in the business of legislating morals, religious beliefs etc., be it banning something or imposing something.

[MSI Magus]

I don't think it's just banning. It's just attempting to legislate morals in general that grates on my.

Trying to ban abortion and gay marriage, gay adoption etc.
Trying to ban flag burning
Trying to ban sex education in schools and teach abstinence only
Trying to get organized, led prayer in schools
Trying to ban teaching of evolution (less of that in present) or require creationism be taught
Trying to ban porn, porn stores, strip clubs etc.

Just on down the line. The government should not be in the business of legislating morals, religious beliefs etc., be it banning something or imposing something.

^^^^^^^^^^
Prooving that organized religion is the stupidest and most deadly thing man has ever come up with.

[thrustbucket]

Msutt is just a sad panda because he's on everyone's ignore list including mine since the beginning of time.

MSI, look. You can see me how you want, but if you haven't ignored me already - just know two things:

1- I hate republicans.

2- Many of my posts are simply to provoke discussion. I am not presenting an agenda. The quoted passage you say is proof of my bias is absurd. I was merely posting a link I found, to see what people would say about it. I DID NOT SAY I AGREED WITH IT. If I had, you would have a case for my being so biased, but I didn't.

I think your problem is that you assume everything I post, especially links, are my agenda and view. They aren't. I have very little agenda.

I simply gravitate to playing devils advocate on these forums. And since the majority of posters are Left wing obama love festers, I tend to come off as defending the other side a lot. But I don't. I just feel it's necessary in order to have a discussion, otherwise every thread here would be a bunch of "Republican bad, I hate bush, Conservative suck, Obama is god..." posts. Maybe that's a fault of mine, for just wanting to stir the pot. But you are still dead wrong in your assesment of my biasedness or party affiliation.

What I would really like to discuss? I would love for a thread to exist about Ron Paul and what he's doing, his own convention. That's interesting to me. But nobody here will discuss that shit because everyone on this forum is a full subscriber to the Republican vs. Democrat drama.

And finally, you are the one that made it personal. So if you can't take the heat of it back, then put me on ignore.

[camoor]

They typically don't.

Abortion, to them, is not about banning someone's right, it's about protecting the right of the one getting killed without doing anything wrong. You can disagree with that view if you want, but don't make it sound like their goal is to take away rights when from their pov they are doing the opposite.

Gay Rights, yes that's true. That is almost entirely religious driven. Although most conservatives I know simply don't want the government involved in people's personal lives and relationships period. Until recently, it hasn't been an issue for them to make a stink about because "marriage" is not an issue commonly challenged politically.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, please list some more "behaviors" that conservatives want to "ban" that don't affect others.

I feel an REM "End of the World" word avalanche coming on...

Stem cell research
Sex education in public schools
Birth control in public schools
Morning-after pill
Recognition of Wicca by the military (or as Bush W says, "witchcraft")
Books with obscenities (lookin' at you Palin --> http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html )
Harry Potter books and/or read-a-longs in public schools, libraries, etc
Nudity (artistic or otherwise - see Ashcroft's blind lady justice for a good example)
Dramatic, tasteful depictions of sex in movies (exploitative violence on 3pm network TV is just fine - exploitative sex parody in movies is just fine - again, please see "This Movie Is Not Yet Rated")
"Indecent" content on airwaves (IE whatever happens to offend the handful of people writing to the FCC)

...but at least they don't want to ban Christmas like those lousy no-good Grinch liberals! :lol:

[thrustbucket]

I don't think it's just banning. It's just attempting to legislate morals in general that grates on my.

Trying to ban abortion and gay marriage, gay adoption etc.
Trying to ban flag burning
Trying to ban sex education in schools and teach abstinence only
Trying to get organized, led prayer in schools
Trying to ban teaching of evolution (less of that in present) or require creationism be taught
Trying to ban porn, porn stores, strip clubs etc.

Just on down the line. The government should not be in the business of legislating morals, religious beliefs etc., be it banning something or imposing something.

But should they be in the business of legislating or banning things that are AGAINST ones religious beliefs? What you might fail to understand is that the few people that do fight those things, do it because THEY feel YOUR views are being imposed on theirs. Yet somehow the argument of having someone legislate and impose their views on you only seems to apply to liberals.
Just food for thought.

Everything you listed, except MAYBE some in the first, can and should be dealt with on local levels.

If their is a community that has a high percentage of muslims, and they want to pray in school, I'd put it up for a vote. Simple as that.

And I have roughly the same argument for most of that. If you really think about it, it's the desire to make unified laws across a multi-cultural society that makes these "hot button" issues. Either side you take, you feel your being imposed upon. So instead of arguing endlessly who's grand unified rules should exist for everyone, my answer is to do it locally.

[thrustbucket]

I feel an REM "End of the World" word avalanche coming on...
It's hard for me to argue against either of your lists, since I personally agree with a lot of it. But in light of some people like MSI Magus not quite understanding what it means to play devils advocate, let me make the disclaimer that I am in this post. But let me add to that disclaimer that I seriously don't think most "conservatives" are against all the things you list. It's a diminishing group of people in the bible belt that usually push what your against, not conservatives in general.

Stem cell research
Make it a state issue. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the cells used to do what stem cells are wanted for don't have to come from fetal stems.

Sex education in public schools
State/County issue. See above post.

Birth control in public schools
I'm fine with that, as long as we hand out free bullets too ;)
Seriously, why is that needed? If we are going to go that far, let's just lace school lunches with sexual repressors.

Morning-after pill
I don't know anyone that has a problem with this. Not one conservative (personally)

Recognition of Wicca by the military (or as Bush W says, "witchcraft")
Don't know anyone with a problem with this, except maybe Michael Savage.

Books with obscenities (lookin' at you Palin --> http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html )
Harry Potter books and/or read-a-longs in public schools, libraries, etc

If the majority of the community that supports/pays for those places/books want that, I have no issue with it.

Nudity (artistic or otherwise - see Ashcroft's blind lady justice for a good example)
Dramatic, tasteful depictions of sex in movies (exploitative violence on 3pm network TV is just fine - exploitative sex parody in movies is just fine - again, please see "This Movie Is Not Yet Rated")

"Indecent" content on airwaves (IE whatever happens to offend the handful of people writing to the FCC)
The rating systems seem to work fine. I've never heard of anyone trying to completely ban all that stuff. If there are, you are increasingly talking about more and more of a minority of people here.

You need to keep in mind one thing: Most conservatives are not interested in LEGISLATING a lot of that stuff to everyone across the entire country. However, the people that do, are conservative.

...but at least they don't want to ban Christmas like those lousy no-good Grinch liberals! :lol:
Again, if a city/county/state wanted to, put it to a vote and let them.

[dmaul1114]

But should they be in the business of legislating or banning things that are AGAINST ones religious beliefs? What you might fail to understand is that the few people that do fight those things, do it because THEY feel YOUR views are being imposed on theirs.

And they'd be wrong. Allowing gay marriage doesn't force them to do anything or ban them from doing anything. It just offends them. Banning gay marriage directly takes rights away from people. Forcing organized, teacher led prayer in schools isolates those with different beliefs in the room (I have no problem with voluntary student led prayer groups).

That's the difference. Conservatives want to directly take away rights or impose their beliefs. Liberals simply want these social issue left up to the individual and to hell with anyone offended by them having the right. People need to live their lives and not try to force others to share their values and beliefs. To each their own. Some issues are constitutional--like separation of church and state in regards to school prayer.


Everything you listed, except MAYBE some in the first, can and should be dealt with on local levels.

Most of these are things that shouldn't be dealt with at all, as they should be left to the individual or the constitution is clear (i..e separation of church and state=no organized, led prayer in schools).


If their is a community that has a high percentage of muslims, and they want to pray in school, I'd put it up for a vote. Simple as that.


Not led prayer, because of separation of church and state. Student led prayer groups are fine in my view, and shouldn't need a vote.

[lilboo]

It's kinda funny that these issues, are actually..issues..:lol:

Makes me really hate religion all together when people who are really religious feel that since they are so religious they have more/better morals than others and try and push their beliefs/views on them as well. It's just insane.

I just can't believe we've progressed this far in life, and yet, some of these issues have yet to be resolved. It's amazing.

[thrustbucket]

And they'd be wrong. Allowing gay marriage doesn't force them to do anything or ban them from doing anything. It just offends them. Banning gay marriage directly takes rights away from people. Forcing organized, teacher led prayer in schools isolates those with different beliefs in the room (I have no problem with voluntary student led prayer groups).
That's basically what I was talking about. In groups. It would be insane to force an athiest teacher to lead a prayer, and I don't know anyone who is proposing that.

That's the difference. Conservatives want to directly take away rights or impose their beliefs. Liberals simply want these social issue left up to the individual and to hell with anyone offended by them having the right. People need to live their lives and not try to force others to share their values and beliefs. To each their own. Some issues are constitutional--like separation of church and state in regards to school prayer.

I think the words "over-generalizing" is an understatement here.

Much like the word "liberal" has been been vilified for those on the right, clearly the same is true for "conservative", as evident by your posts. It seems very much to me a massive misunderstanding.

Here we are walking a fine line where I think the majority of conservatives (even republicans, if you can call them conservative) agree with what I bolded. The fact that you believe otherwise shows the real sickness in this country of misunderstanding each other in general.

Most people, that consider themselves conservative, agree with your choice/freedom speech. IMO.



Most of these are things that shouldn't be dealt with at all, as they should be left to the individual or the constitution is clear (i..e separation of church and state=no organized, led prayer in schools).
I agree. And even if they need to be dealt with, I think it should be dealt with locally first, if possible.

But I can't take the view that all things should be open for all people to do at all times, and if people are offended, tough shit. Most people don't want to see public sex, for example, or especially their children to see it. That's why I feel it's important to rely on the local communities, as people of like mind usually congregate, let them set the standards and local policies they are comfortable with and least offended by.



It's kinda funny that these issues, are actually..issues..:lol:

Makes me really hate religion all together when people who are really religious feel that since they are so religious they have more/better morals than others and try and push their beliefs/views on them as well. It's just insane.

I just can't believe we've progressed this far in life, and yet, some of these issues have yet to be resolved. It's amazing.

I hate to use you as an example, lilboo, but this is what I'm talking about. We are in a culture war. And we are in this war because neither side can tolerate, learn to tolerate, or compromise.

Hate for religion leads to being intolerant of the religious. And vice versa.

[lilboo]

I agree! But let's face it.. it wouldn't BE that way if people didn't push their religious beliefs on other people!

[camoor]

They typically don't.

Abortion, to them, is not about banning someone's right, it's about protecting the right of the one getting killed without doing anything wrong. You can disagree with that view if you want, but don't make it sound like their goal is to take away rights when from their pov they are doing the opposite.

Gay Rights, yes that's true. That is almost entirely religious driven. Although most conservatives I know simply don't want the government involved in people's personal lives and relationships period. Until recently, it hasn't been an issue for them to make a stink about because "marriage" is not an issue commonly challenged politically.

I don't agree with you on the abortion thing. I fully think the main pillar of pro-life support is organized by religous leaders in a top-down fashion.

How else, statistically speaking, could so many Fundie/Evangelist/Baptist/Catholic people come to one conclusion and so many non-religious or non-dogmatic people come to another? Are religious people more compassionate, more thoughtful, are they predisposed to think of fetuses differently? Maybe, but from what I've seen, I doubt it.

IMO you're an exception - I think you've really thought the issue through and settled on something you believe with your heart and your mind. Unfortunately I think most of the people that share your opinion about abortion got it from their religion, and did not actually think about it at all.

[dmaul1114]

That's basically what I was talking about. In groups. It would be insane to force an athiest teacher to lead a prayer, and I don't know anyone who is proposing that.

It shouldn't be led by any teachers period. Teachers are paid state employees, they can't promote any religion on duty.

And prayer in the class room is not right as it's uncomfortable for students not of that religion and atheist students. The only way I can accept it is allow voluntary student led prayer groups in schools before or after the school day. Some don't even like that as they think use of school facilities (built and maintained by tax payer dollars) can't be used for religious functions per separation of church and state. I don't go that far. As long as it's not during the school day hours, and is entirely a voluntary extracurricular activity I have no problems.


Most people, that consider themselves conservative, agree with your choice/freedom speech. IMO.


Probably so, I'm really only talking about social conservatives and religious fundamentalists. Bush's core support base. That's really what people associate with conservatives/republicans these days (and presumably why you hate republicans--on top of their big spending).



But I can't take the view that all things should be open for all people to do at all times, and if people are offended, tough shit. Most people don't want to see public sex, for example, or especially their children to see it.

Don't obfuscate the issue with a straw man example. Of course there has to be laws and regulations. But not on people's own private behavior that doesn't directly effect other people. Sex in public directly affects other people as it's a lewd act in public. But what people do in their own bedroom with others consenting adults is none of anyone's business. Same with abortion etc. None of this stuff directly effects other people, and people and especially the government, should keep their nose out of personal social issues.

[camoor]

Trying to ban abortion and gay marriage, gay adoption etc.
Trying to ban flag burning
Trying to ban sex education in schools and teach abstinence only
Trying to get organized, led prayer in schools
Trying to ban teaching of evolution (less of that in present) or require creationism be taught
Trying to ban porn, porn stores, strip clubs etc.

That's a good list. Part of the problem I ran into was that conservative Christians are not just about banning things, they're also always trying to find a way to inject their religion into all sorts of inappropriate places (such as currency, the court system, and public schools)

[dmaul1114]

That's a good list. Part of the problem I ran into was that conservative Christians are not just about banning things, they're also always trying to find a way to inject their religion into all sorts of inappropriate places (such as currency, the court system, and public schools)

Yep, that's a lot of what I was getting at above. The attempted trampling of separation of church and state by those groups is one of my top social annoyances.

[thrustbucket]

IMO you're an exception - I think you've really thought the issue through and settled on something you believe with your heart and your mind. Unfortunately I think most of the people that share your opinion about abortion got it from their religion, and did not actually think about it at all.

Thanks. I guess it's hard for me to argue for the conservative side, which I feel I can and should do, because I have sympathy for them. But it's hard for me because I think i'm far more Libertarian than Conservative, which puts me at a very strange crossroads with you liberals, in total agreeance on many things, and polar opposite on others.

Yep, that's a lot of what I was getting at above. The attempted trampling of separation of church and state by those groups is one of my top social annoyances.

I really don't practice a religion but none of that stuff ever bothered me. I strongly feel that the whole "seperation of church from state" issue has been taken far far further in modern times than what was meant when it was written. All that was ever intended by it, imo, was to keep church's from directly taking over aspects of government. Other than that, they can and should be treated like any other lobby group. I don't understand why the rules are different as soon as a lobby group is identified as a religion.

I have to say that I find the whole tolerance sale of the left very oddly hypocritical, in a way. They (not necessarilly you) champion themselves so much about choice and freedom of expression. See, I see religious/spiritual expression as no different than any other expression. I believe that if enough people congregate, for any expressive purpose, or any philosophy, they can and should mold their surroundings around them to accommodate those things. And I think the government, in a limited capacity of course, should be willing to endorse some of it (e.g. creating libraries that might specialize in the communities interest more). It's just strange that religious belief is treated as the red-headed bastard child of expression by the left.

[camoor]

Thanks. I guess it's hard for me to argue for the conservative side, which I feel I can and should do, because I have sympathy for them. But it's hard for me because I think i'm far more Libertarian than Conservative, which puts me at a very strange crossroads with you liberals, in total agreeance on many things, and polar opposite on others.

Haha you're welcome. I may get a bit "animated" at times but I do see what you're saying about abortion. It's just really hard for me to see it that way when I can't see what a <x months-old fetus has to do with a baby.

I really don't practice a religion but none of that stuff ever bothered me. I strongly feel that the whole "seperation of church from state" issue has been taken far far further in modern times than what was meant when it was written. All that was ever intended by it, imo, was to keep church's from directly taking over aspects of government. Other than that, they can and should be treated like any other lobby group. I don't understand why the rules are different as soon as a lobby group is identified as a religion.

I have to say that I find the whole tolerance sale of the left very oddly hypocritical, in a way. They (not necessarilly you) champion themselves so much about choice and freedom of expression. See, I see religious/spiritual expression as no different than any other expression. I believe that if enough people congregate, for any expressive purpose, or any philosophy, they can and should mold their surroundings around them to accommodate those things. And I think the government, in a limited capacity of course, should be willing to endorse some of it (e.g. creating libraries that might specialize in the communities interest more). It's just strange that religious belief is treated as the red-headed bastard child of expression by the left.

I don't think that's fair - in fact I think liberals are often sticking up for religious expression more then conservatives.

After all, who are the first to uphold a HS student's right to wear a headscarf to school when it relates to their religion? Who is the first to champion the rights of religions that are not yet mainstream in America to open up religious HQs in more "traditional" areas of America? Who's more likely to respect an American Indians' claim of sacred ground?

I think you take more of a "most of us are Christian, public places should reflect this, and the rest of you should get used to it" type of viewpoint. I believe I have more of a "please feel free to act on your religious beliefs, please feel free to openly express them, but do not use the govt in an attempt to coopt me"

[MSI Magus]

Haha you're welcome. I may get a bit "animated" at times but I do see what you're saying about abortion. It's just really hard for me to see it that way when I can't see what a <x months-old fetus has to do with a baby.



I don't think that's fair - in fact I think liberals are often sticking up for religious expression more then conservatives.

After all, who are the first to uphold a HS student's right to wear a headscarf to school when it relates to their religion? Who is the first to champion the rights of religions that are not yet mainstream in America to open up religious HQs in more "traditional" areas of America? Who's more likely to respect an American Indians' claim of sacred ground?

I think you take more of a "most of us are Christian, public places should reflect this, and the rest of you should get used to it" type of viewpoint. I believe I have more of a "please feel free to act on your religious beliefs, please feel free to openly express them, but do not use the govt in an attempt to coopt me"

Exactly. Conservatives do tend to act like this is a Christian nation and everyone else should adapt and learn to pray everywhere at anytime anyone demands it of them. That kids in school should have to learn religious values and that religion and government go hand in hand.

Liberals tend to think that any religion has no place in any publican forum that the government has any part of. I know very few liberals that have a problem with a kid praying in school or a teacher being religious. The problem tends to be with stuff like teachers creating prayer groups or telling kids about intelligent design.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

^What type of religion do you allow in this country?

Both types. Catholic and Protestant.

[KingBroly]

There's a disconnect between those in Washington and those outside of it Almost always will and almost always has been in this country. Even though the majority of people may want one thing, those in Government take specific samples to get the results they want so they can say 'see, this is what I should do'.

[JolietJake]

I was going to create a new thread about this, but it seems like it would fit in here fairly well.

I was talking to a cousin earlier and she told me where she wanted to go to college. I can't remember the name, but it was some christian school in Arkansas. She said she wanted to be a teacher.

After they left, i got to thinking about something. In teaching at a public school, she'd be required to teach evolution, assuming she was teaching in a grade where it is discussed.

Now in my mind, somebody who has a education rooted in religion couldn't possibly be that effective at teaching evolution. It's something that would go against their very beliefs and i feel they'd give it lip service at best.

So what do you all think?

[thrustbucket]

I was going to create a new thread about this, but it seems like it would fit in here fairly well.

I was talking to a cousin earlier and she told me where she wanted to go to college. I can't remember the name, but it was some christian school in Arkansas. She said she wanted to be a teacher.

After they left, i got to thinking about something. In teaching at a public school, she'd be required to teach evolution, assuming she was teaching in a grade where it is discussed.

Now in my mind, somebody who has a education rooted in religion couldn't possibly be that effective at teaching evolution. It's something that would go against their very beliefs and i feel they'd give it lip service at best.

So what do you all think?

You can easily teach both, depending on the exact faction of "Christianity" she belongs to though.

But the majority of them do teach evolution. Evolution is the modern accepted form of science to explain adaptation in biology. That's it. It doesn't contradict any Christian teaching really.

Even the dyed in th wool "The world/humans have only been here 7,000 years" people can make it fit.

[mykevermin]

You can easily teach both, depending on the exact faction of "Christianity" she belongs to though.

But the majority of them do teach evolution. Evolution is the modern accepted form of science to explain adaptation in biology. That's it. It doesn't contradict any Christian teaching really.

Even the dyed in th wool "The world/humans have only been here 7,000 years" people can make it fit.

Please. Literal interpretation of the bible doesn't allow room for God's perfect creations to change or modify.

That said, if a person considers themselves ethical, respectful of their profession, and someone who takes their job seriously, they'll do a good job of whatever they are asked to do.

What I don't get in this day and age (and this goes for doctors who don't want to perform abortions) is the idea that, if people's jobs interfere with their religious beliefs, that the JOB should change, and they don't consider that perhaps THEY should leave the workplace.

Now, something like allowing time for daily muslim prayer is likely to be a recurring theme wherever you look for work, and it's short, so it could be accommodated easily. If smokers get to step outside for 10 minutes 3 or more times a day, why not this as well?

Now, however, if you would insist on taking off the whole month during which Ramadan falls, and collect vacation pay for the whole time (or simply leave the job and expect to come back in a month), well, tough, pal.

If an educator feels that their work is being conflicted by their religion such that stress is the result, don't even entertain the idea that the job should change. Think about the possibility of you not being an educator anymore. Or go teach math.

[JolietJake]

You can easily teach both, depending on the exact faction of "Christianity" she belongs to though.

But the majority of them do teach evolution. Evolution is the modern accepted form of science to explain adaptation in biology. That's it. It doesn't contradict any Christian teaching really.

Even the dyed in th wool "The world/humans have only been here 7,000 years" people can make it fit.
I didn't say you couldn't, i just don't think you could be that effective.

Look at it this way, how effective could an atheist be as a preacher?

I don't see how you can say it doesn't contradict any Christian teaching though, I'd like more explanation on that. It gives completely different explanations for how we came to be here.

[JolietJake]

Please. Literal interpretation of the bible doesn't allow room for God's perfect creations to change or modify.

That said, if a person considers themselves ethical, respectful of their profession, and someone who takes their job seriously, they'll do a good job of whatever they are asked to do.

What I don't get in this day and age (and this goes for doctors who don't want to perform abortions) is the idea that, if people's jobs interfere with their religious beliefs, that the JOB should change, and they don't consider that perhaps THEY should leave the workplace.

Now, something like allowing time for daily muslim prayer is likely to be a recurring theme wherever you look for work, and it's short, so it could be accommodated easily. If smokers get to step outside for 10 minutes 3 or more times a day, why not this as well?

Now, however, if you would insist on taking off the whole month during which Ramadan falls, and collect vacation pay for the whole time (or simply leave the job and expect to come back in a month), well, tough, pal.

If an educator feels that their work is being conflicted by their religion such that stress is the result, don't even entertain the idea that the job should change. Think about the possibility of you not being an educator anymore. Or go teach math.
I'll agree with what you said about being ethical and professional. I would hope that that is all anyone would need to do their jobs as well as possible.

There are things that would make a red flag pop up for me though. If say a teacher wanted creationism taught in school. That would make me question their commitment to teaching science.

[mykevermin]

Well, it makes me question their commitment to knowledge, let alone teaching.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Well, it makes me question their commitment to knowledge, let alone teaching.

Brainwashing is a form of teaching.

[thrustbucket]

I don't see how you can say it doesn't contradict any Christian teaching though, I'd like more explanation on that. It gives completely different explanations for how we came to be here.

By definition, evolution doesn't attempt to answer where we came from or how it all started. There are several theories, and they don't amount to much more than guesses because it wasn't observed. Evolution just explains progressive change in species, which is observable.

That's how it's compatible. I'm not saying that creationism should be taught in school. I'm just saying that someone that calls himself Christian, isn't automatically by default, an enemy of the theory of evolution.

I know several people that went to a church-run university. They learned all the standard theories of evolution in class, some of the professors are even atheists. And when they go to religion class, they discuss the "enhanced theories/beliefs" and how it ties into evolution. They are completely separate.

[dmaul1114]

See, I see religious/spiritual expression as no different than any other expression.

In large I agree. But I support separation of church and state much more seriously than you do.

It wasn't written to keep religion from taking over government, it was written to keep the government from being tied to one religion and oppressing people with other beliefs. Remember the country was first settled largely by people fleeing religious oppression.

Stuff like prayer in schools if led by teachers etc. is just too much of a slippery slope. Same with faith based programs getting funding, to many will promote their views on top of helping people and I don't want my tax dollars going to that (this is one of my only gripes with Obama's plans).

In god we trust on money doesn't bother me much as it's not promoting any specific religion, and as an Atheist I don't worry about silly stuff like generic references to god.

But in general, I think it's best for religion to be an entirely private enterprise and government should stay out of it as much as possible and keep it out of the curriculum and school day activities at public schools etc.

[GuilewasNK]

Having unwed sex is a "grave sin" according to the Bible.


Well sex was the result of sin anyway.

All I'll say is that if woman can get out of taking care of a baby by aborting it then men shouldn't be forced to pay child support if she doesn't. Fair is fair.

[thrustbucket]

But in general, I think it's best for religion to be an entirely private enterprise and government should stay out of it as much as possible and keep it out of the curriculum and school day activities at public schools etc.

Well it would be hypocritical of me to argue that point with you. Especially when my wish list for such things is much much longer :).