afternoon y'all, afternoon phil

evenin'

eyup

[url]http://www.mchl-dnl.com/content/XYZ.mid[/url]

Check out my lame song i made! Comments please on how to improve it!

[quote=Josiah;13590246]We are? Where does it say that?


There are numerous founding d0cuments with religious statements and reasoning.[/quote]
No, heh. It is clearly stated in the Bill of Rights that Americans should possess freedom of religion.

The vast majority of the founding fathers were deists, which basically meant that they believed that God created the Earth, and then has played no further role...so hence most of the other Christian beliefs didn't exist to them. Most of them were strongly against a state religion...we are definitely not a Christian country.

[QUOTE=TTTSNB;13591687]No, heh. It is clearly stated in the Bill of Rights that Americans should possess freedom of religion.

The vast majority of the founding fathers were deists, which basically meant that they believed that God created the Earth, and then has played no further role...so hence most of the other Christian beliefs didn't exist to them. Most of them were strongly against a state religion...[COLOR="Red"]we are definitely not a Christian country.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

You are from the eys of a foreigner

[quote=Dave*Grohl;13591709]You are from the eys of a foreigner[/quote]
Nope...I'm American. I know a great deal of the people in my area are fundamentalist Christian nutjobs, for example. It's just, our founding fathers did not intend for us to have a religious slant to our laws, in general.

He meant people from other countries see you as a christian country.

Ive been proper into electronic stuff lately. Celldweller, MSI, Ultraviolence, Pendulum etc

Pendulum are really good man

They damn well are. Reccomend any albums? I really need to get some, I only ever hear it when I'm drunk.

They only have the S/T one AFAIK.

[quote=TTTSNB;13591687][B]No, heh. It is clearly stated in the Bill of Rights that Americans should possess freedom of religion.[/B]

The vast majority of the founding fathers were deists, which basically meant that they believed that God created the Earth, and then has played no further role...so hence most of the other Christian beliefs didn't exist to them. Most of them were strongly against a state religion...we are definitely not a Christian country.[/quote]

No?

"One nation under God" - PLedge of Alligence

"We the people.. all men are [I]created[/I] equal.."

"In God we trust" - That's on every piece of money (none coin).


Freedom of Religion has nothing to do with seperation of church and state. The 1st ammentment states simply - "[FONT=arial][SIZE=2]"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof""

[FONT=Verdana]That doesn't pertain, whatso ever, to the governments own religious beliefs.[/FONT]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
"It's just, our founding fathers did not intend for us to have a religious slant to our laws, in general."

Very untrue

Some quick clips -

[FONT=arial][SIZE=2]"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations." [COLOR=White][SIZE=-1]- Patrick Henry[/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=#cc0000][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/COLOR] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][SIZE=2]"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." [COLOR=White][SIZE=-1]- Patrick Henry[/SIZE] [SIZE=-2](Virginia Bill of Rights, June 12, 1776.)[/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]


[SIZE=2]
[/SIZE]
[FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=White][SIZE=-2][SIZE=2]The second thing there that Mr. Henry said, very precisesly sums up why the statement in the 1st ammentment is what it is, and why it has nothing to do with seperation of church and state.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=White][SIZE=-2][SIZE=2]Fact of the is, that is the only statement in all the legal documents and founding documents that could be even vaguely interpretted to talk about seperation of church and state.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=2]
[/SIZE]If "It's just, our founding fathers did not intend for us to have a religious slant to our laws, in general." Then how come..

[FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=White][SIZE=-2][SIZE=2] - Our money, motto's, laws, rules, regulations and even the pledgeof alligence have religious statements in them.

When someone testifies in court of Law, they are sworn in - With a Bible.


[/SIZE] [/SIZE][/COLOR] [/SIZE][/FONT]

The first examples you give are completely meaningless. "Under God" was actually added in the fifties under Eisenhower. "We are all created equal" That doesn't imply religion. "In God We Trust" That is a slightly stronger argument. However, any people of European descent would have some sort of religous references to them. Again, back to the deist thing, they believed in God, but in the more moronic aspects of Christianity; they didn't want it to be part of our laws.

The 1st amendment, once again, is clearly about seperation of church and state. [FONT=arial][SIZE=2]"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"" By definition, if the church is part of the state, then the exercise of other religions would most likely be curtailed in some fashion or another.

Now, Patrick Henry here is simply an individual who states his own particular beliefs, not those of a nation. There was a vast disparity in the beliefs of the founding fathers, many of which did not make their way onto the current government ideals.

However, I have no desire to continue this argument. I am going to a concert soon, and will be gone for at least twelve hours.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE=TTTSNB;13592077]The first examples you give are completely meaningless. "Under God" was actually added in the fifties under Eisenhower. "We are all [COLOR="Red"]created[/COLOR] equal" That doesn't imply religion. "In God We Trust" That is a slightly stronger argument. However, any people of European descent would have some sort of religous references to them.

The 1st amendment, once again, is clearly about seperation of church and state. [FONT=arial][SIZE=2]"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"" By definition, if the church is part of the state, then the exercise of other religions would most likely be curtailed in some fashion or another.

Now, Patrick Henry here is simply an individual who states his own particular beliefs, not those of a nation.

However, I have no desire to continue this argument. I am going to a concert soon, and will be gone for at least twelve hours.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Religion

[quote=Drum Phil;13591956]They only have the S/T one AFAIK.[/quote]

hold your colour!

HAha yup. Created, is a religious statement. And it's one of the most dramatically founding principles of the United States.

And, you are very incorrect - A government can be highly religious, and still allow religous freedom to people who live under it's bounds.

And as well, there is a limit in the US, to what religious freedom is - You can not smoke pot in the name of Rasta, You can not sacerfice a Virgin in the name of Whoever. You can not start a church and decide to walk around naked because your god told you so. You can not wear a mask taking ID pictures (recent Muslim case in Florida), The list goes on and on..

My eyes hurt.

Religion irritates me.

I have my beleifs but you dont see me writing them down on flyers and trying to harrass people into agreeing with them in the street.

I respect peoples right to beleive something, so long as they dont try and force others to do the same.

Smp

Smp?

Every possible position on religion debates has already been stated in the politics forum.


So I was driving behind a person. The speed limit is 45. They go 35. We turn onto a street which has a speed limit of 40. They go nearly 60mph.

Wtf?

I lovvus me some chrrrrrssmas.

Jew.

[quote=Loser;13592329]Every possible position on religion debates has already been stated in the politics forum.


So I was driving behind a person. The speed limit is 45. They go 35. We turn onto a street which has a speed limit of 40. They go nearly 60mph.[/quote]

I hate that.

Me and the missus were stuck behind a toyota MR2 doing 30 on the motorway? What the f[I]u[/I]ck? That thing can do 140 without breaking a sweat.

[quote=Drum Phil;13592559]I hate that.

Me and the missus were stuck behind a toyota MR2 doing 30 on the motorway? What the f[I]u[/I]ck? That thing can do 140 without breaking a sweat.[/quote]

Thats because some rich *** conservative hunting bitch was driving it!

They buy all these muscle cars and stuff, yet only drive em at 30MPH

^ Oh man...I hate that. The worst is people going like 65 in the left lane of the highway. Kills me.

Muscle?

Dude what the christ? Toyota arent muscle.

Muscle = Dodge, Pontiac etc. Maybe even some old school jaguars.

Yes, it's just so intelligent to drive 160mph just because your car can.



There are speed limits and traffic regulations for a reason.

Wrong word, sports cars. Like, loads of old people down here have really nice MG's, bentlys and whatnot. All that power, but they drive about 10MPH on the main road...

Hell, the X53 double decker drivers rag their buses faster than those old people rag their cars.

[quote=Janeway;13592600]Yes, it's just so intelligent to drive 160mph just because your car can.



There are speed limits and traffic regulations for a reason.[/quote]

When did ANYONE mention pushing cars to their limits?

Learn to read.

Theres a minimum limit too y'know, especially when the limits 70-80.

HAha how funny...

I'm not a slow driver myself.

i can't drive, so i cycle everywhere. But i've had passing comments that my cycling is violent, and dangerous...

[QUOTE=TTTSNB;13592572]^ Oh man...I hate that. The worst is people going like 65 in the left lane of the highway. Kills me.[/QUOTE]

It's worse when you have one person in the left, one in the right, both going 60ish for dozens of miles.

I think they were doing it just to piss people off or something.

[QUOTE=Loser;13592329]So I was driving behind a person. The speed limit is 45. They go 35. We turn onto a street which has a speed limit of 40. They go nearly 60mph.[/QUOTE]

Hahahah, I do crap like that sometimes just to mess with people.

I normally drive atleast the speedlimit, if not faster.

[QUOTE=Drum Phil;13592559]I hate that.

Me and the missus were stuck behind a toyota MR2 doing 30 on the motorway? What the f[I]u[/I]ck? That thing [B][I][U]can do 140[/U][/I][/B] without breaking a sweat.[/QUOTE]

Implying that it should go faster than that, simply because the car was buit for it.




But I urge you to continue driving like the inebriated moron that you are. That would be one less scumbag leeching off the rest of society.

[quote=Janeway;13592688]Implying that it should go faster than that, simply because the car was buit for it.




But I urge you to continue driving like the inebriated moron that you are. That would be one less scumbag leeching off the rest of society.[/quote]

Unless phil goes to college, i doubt he gets anything from the government. He pays his taxes, and gets "free" healthcare in return. Thats about it....

And he was just laying down the basic power of the car. He wasn't imply it should go at 140MPH, he was just suggeting that it could go the extra 50MPH faster on the motorway without struggling.

Implying things or not, driving 30 on the freeway is dangerous.

lol car talk.

I did some more of my song futuro...