Bigoted? Yep, when my arguments cannot be refuted with logic I generally get called a bigot and thus far I have seen no logic..but then if you were logical you would not be defending a religion that practiced symbolic cannibalism nor had a history of burning those who did not agree at the stake..hell even that did agree were burnt just because they happened to be Jews by race and Christian by faith.

But then see, I once heard a story about a drunk and a preacher who met on a one way bridge. The drunk was there first and told the preacher that he needed to back up..the preacher yelled out, “I WON’T BACK UP FROM A FOOL!”

And the drunk replied, “I will.”

So like the drunk I am backing up and you have the last word.

You are free to come to any conclusion [opinion] you choose, and you have your one vote to prevent any group from pushing its agenda on you.

“I am a Deist myself..but that doesn’t mean I am a Christian.”

Thank you for enlightening me. I do not claim much knowledge of the modern deist movement and have found their websites somewhat angry in tone. Again, I don’t care about personal religious choices.

“I will scrapegoat [sic] the Christian right wing whenever I choose to do and that will be often, See, unlike the Christian right wing I believe in freedom of speech and have do desire to put someone in stocks for blasphemy.”

Again, feel free to speak as you will, but don’t be offended when you come off as bigoted and hypocritical as the good citizens of Salem who first blamed and then burned their witches.

“You don’t seem to understand that the First amendment does in fact guarantee freedom of religion..seems few of the Christian right wing do”

Once more, I am not, nor have ever been, a right wing Christian. Your assumption to that premise is a non-sequitur. I am a strict Constitutional constructionist; it says what it says. I understand the establishment clause perfectly; I just do not accept YOUR interpretation.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

—-the word FROM does not appear there in at all. It is impossible to have a country that accepts all religions and not be exposed regularly to someone’s religion or lack of.

“It means that I can send my children to a public school without the fear that they will be indoctrinated in any religion…”

If you think that any school can indoctrinate your child in social or religious matters then you need to consider how much of an impact you are making on their emotional and intellectual development. And again, your are implying things that aren’t there such as public education which is not a right guaranteed under the Constitution. It is a state mandate.

“a platform that addresses the three most serious issues facing this country…two billion Moslem’s who want to destroy us, 20,000,000 illegal immigrants who are helping to ruin our economy, and 11 trillion plus in a ever growing national debt”

That is a platform that I, too, would support. If members of any other religious or non-religious groups feel the same way, they are welcome. It is better than the alternative.

I will scrapegoat the Christian right wing whenever I choose to do and that will be often, See, unlike the Christian right wing I believe in freedom of speech and do desire to put someone in stocks for blasphemy.

And, being a historian by education I have studied the early days of the American colonies as well as the letters and diaries of many of those who framed the constitution. You don’t seem to understand that the First amendment does in fact guarantee freedom of religion..seems few of the Christian right wing do understand this. It means that I can send my children to a public school without the fear that they will be indoctrinated in any religion…or at least it once did..now the children are being indoctrinated in the religion of socialism which is as bad as the far Christian right…actually I believe that a socialist is just a Christian right winger turned wrong side out..such as Huckabee..a Christian socialist.

Freedom of religion gives me a guarantee that “blue laws” will not close a business on anyone’s holy day and that libraries can stock books that a religion finds offensive. Freedom from religion insures that I don’t have to listen to a Christian right winger tell me NOT to exercise my freedom of speech…

And you are right..McCain has no trouble with the Christian right wing..he is a gotdam politician who will do whatever he has to do to get the votes..that’s how the GOP was infiltrated to begin with..to get the votes.

But if by some slim chance a true conservative party can be formed..one without the platform of the Christian right wing on it..a platform that addresses the three most serious issues facing this country…two billion Moslem’s who want to destroy us, 20,000,000 illegal immigrants who are helping to ruin our economy, and 11 trillion plus in a ever growing national debt…will the Christian right wing support this platform? I have my doubts..they have voted massive Federal spending and many supported McCain’ amnesty program..

I have came to the conclusion that the Christian right wing is against freedom..except for the freedom to push their agenda on me and others.

Christianity and its history is not perfect. Any creation by man is by definition inherently flawed. Christians, however, are not currently stoning adulterers, beheading infidels, or flying airplanes into buildings filled with innocents of all religions.

As I stated before, I don’t care if someone prays in school, out of school, or not at all. I don’t have a problem with the personal belief in witchcraft or establishing the Church of the Great Elm Tree. It doesn’t affect me; it is someone else’s personal decision . I also do not believe that those whose religious beliefs differ from mine have a one-way ticket to hell.

But when history and the affects that Christianity had on the founding of this country is written out of the process, then the accuracy of the times is being altered. Los Angeles was founded as a Catholic mission, it is a part of the history and taking the cross out of the seal is disingenuous revisionism. The cross is a symbol and nothing more. It is not there to convert, discriminate, or intimidate. If you find that “overbearing,” then I am glad that the ACLU has now protected you from the trauma.

I am trying to follow your logic from separation of church of state to overspending, but I am having some problems with jump. Yes, the Republicans share the responsibility for the overspending that has taken place over the last decade, but I don’t know of any religious commandment that says “Thou shalt overspend other people’s money.”

Ironically, statistic showed in the last election Republicans actually lost some of the “church attending” population. The “religious right” is only a small percentage, perhaps 15%, of registered Republicans. That is hardly a majority. The fact that they tend to be vocal and well-organized may make them seem more influential than they really are. There are also gay, Jewish, black, Muslim and atheists groups within the GOP. If you don’t like the direction of the party, get involved, become a delegate, network with like-minded, but don’t blame others for your dissatisfaction.

I don’t know what planks of the platform you attribute to the “religious right,” but the 2008 platform, when it is formed, will be only that–a basis not a universal dogma that all Republicans are going to swallow whole. No one will ever agree with every word of it. It is intended to be a general consensus, not a mandate for a sheep-like populace. Besides, the possibility of getting every item or even some items supported by Christians legislated is not even feasible. Proof of that can be found in the fact that nothing changed even when Republicans controlled the Senate, House, and Presidency.

The religious right has not taken over the Republicans, if anything, they are closer to splintering off on their own than any other group. Most of them do not support John McCain who seems to be having no trouble against Evangelist Huckabee.

Vote for whom you choose, that is your Constitutional right, but don’t scapegoat a small group for your not having a candidate you like or a platform you can’t agree with. And don’t try to insert your 2008 mindset and views into 18th century intellectuals who, despite and because of their religious values, PRECISELY worded the place that established religion would and should play in this country.

It is ironic that Christians came to the new world to escape persecution yet did not hesitate to persecute any who didn’t believe as they did. I for one believe that if given the chance this persecution would happen again..stocks and hangings and burning of witches..yeah, the history of Christians is really something to be proud of..

But then I have no gripe about a prayer in school not religious symbols in public buildings..but just keep in mind when you do for one you must also do for others..do you want your children praying to an Islamic God in school? How about some equal time for devil worship?

True freedom requires respect of everyone’s freedom..not just the freedom to practice Christianity. But the true freedom is not now nor has it ever been compatible with any organized religious dogma because such dogma requires the stifling of logic and acceptance of the teachings on faith alone…

The Christian right wing infiltrated the GOP which accepted the infiltration in order to gain political power. Now we have a country that is trillions of dollars in debt and a GOP congress that worries more about abortion rights than illegal immigration and national defense….and a candidate backed by the religious right wing who has stated that he wants to change the constitution to fit his ideas of biblical agenda. And you wonder why the seculars of the country are supporting the dim-a-crits?

I am not supporting the dim-a-crits but I will not support any party that has the Christian right wing agenda on the platform..never again. This country became great because of its devotion to freedom and freedom from overbearing religious groups…I want it to become a great nation once again.

I understand EVERYTHING that is WRITTEN in the Constitution. When you insert the word “implied” then by definition YOU are adding your interpretation of the words and their meaning. And unless you are a part of the Supreme Court or communicating with the dead, then it is your opinion only.

The forefathers did not want a state religion, as was the case in England. The fact that they were writing from a Christian point of view is a matter of historical fact not opinion.

The judicial system has taken Jefferson’s letter and used it as a basis to add the implication that a country without a state religion SHOULD be a nation WITHOUT religion. No religious (i.e. Christian) symbols should be involved in any governmental controlled entity. They have banned the Biblical statues from “public” courthouses and crosses from the city flags and seals.

I personally don’t care a whit about what the religion is of others…. Muslim, Wicca, or whatever. My personal religious experience is mostly non-existent. I do not, however, want Christianity to be erased from the historical context that it played in the founding of this country or be singled out as the one religion that is not allowed to be included in public non-mandatory religious activities and ceremonies.

If any group, even under the pretense of religion, is teaching hate or treason that is a crime in itself and should be dealt with it as a crime. But the individuals right to have or not have a personal religion is one of the things our soldiers are dying for right now in two Muslim country.

At no point did I ever say that others should not be allowed to practice their religion. But the removal of all things Christian is not part of the First Amendment and a part of history revisionism brought about by a secular relativism. It has been allowed because of the Supreme Court’s INTERPRETATION of the Constitution based on a letter written by one man, Thomas Jefferson. The letter was written to get votes during an election year to a specific group of Baptist ministers, yet is has been given precedence that it was never intended. Would anyone today take a letter written by a political candidate to a lobbyist in hopes of winning his favor and votes and use it to interpret the Constitution? That is absurd.

Thanks, Fred, maybe I did get off the point. You are right; the Constitution does give rights or has been interpreted to give rights for people to do things I do not approve. That is the way it is, but by the same token, the Constitution has been twisted by liberal jurists to include or exclude things far beyond what is in the actual text.