Allah made me do it.

The pubes are mighty. That they are.

 

This is funny because that's the verse I used to have in my signature that got Charles BHoff (where is that whack job anyway?) so hot and bothered.

But otherwise, it's not funny at all. Nobody should be allowed to beat their wives, obviously. It's also sad that Germany is slowly being taken over by radical Muslims. Those fucking krauts need to start having kids to bolster their dwindling population.

Love it.

 

Yeah...they do. One of my best friends is the son of a current German citizen. If you so much as hint at the muslims, she'll go off on a tangent about how the dumbasses in the fatherland need to stop cow-tailing to religion.

Can they be burkas made of satin?

 

Nah, cotton burkas, so they'll be partially see-through, but technically still not enough to be unchaste. Technically.

 

WE DON'T USE THAT NAME ANYMORE! Just kidding, but you can just use my real last name. It'd be less confusing, probably. And thanks for acknowledging how much our Constitution rules. Despite my own personal faith, I also believe that there should be freedom of religion (because it's my PERSONAL faith). Which is a little different from "separation of church and state," a phrase that isn't actually in the Constitution. It was something Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. His exact words were, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." So that sentence is not actually found anywhere in the Constitution or American law, it's just something that Jefferson was extrapolating from the First Amendment. I don't like the phrase because it's one of those things that's misquoted to take away people's religious freedom in this country, which is retarded because that's what the First Amendment (and Jefferson's contemplation of it) was supposed to safeguard against. For those of you who haven't read the Constitution, the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And the chick is hot.

 

Even more important than the 1st amendment is the 2nd, because if someone tells me I can't practice my religeon, it gives me the power to tell them to fuck off.

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Odd as it is to quote a rapper,
"She gave me a reason to be a damn heathen." - Chingy

Rosselli, there is a great problem in this country caused by the rift between the intelligent and the educated. An intelligent person knows that the Constitution is an imperfect attempt by its crafters to live up to an ideal, and they can extrapolate those principles into phrases, as Jefferson did, like 'seperation of church and state.' The meaning is still correct.

'Educated' people, on the other hand, heard that somewhere, and then proceed to fuck up the intelligent person's phrases by applying them in ways that aren't useful, as you state is the problem. The error isn't in the phrase it's in the application.

Time for a small analogy; amputation is a suitable medical practice in certain situations. If I have gangrene, it's a good idea. If I stub my toe, not so much.

Now, time to make that pertainent; the freedom of speech for example, is a sacred trust. However, there are times it must be abridged, such as yelling 'Fire' in a theater, to cite the common example. An intelligent person understands the phrase 'clear and present danger.' An 'educated' person heard that somewhere in class and translates it into trying to kick Howard Stern off the air because his program is offensive. That's amputating a stubbed toe, and I think it's in parallel to what you're complaining about with separation of church and state.

 

Examples: It's now illegal to pray in public school, the Ten Commandments can no longer be displayed in a court house, and they're starting to take our national motto, "In God We Trust," off our coins. In some places, you can't have a nativity scene in your yard because it can be viewed from public property.

Separation of church and state is starting to take away freedom of religion in favor of freedom from religeon.


EDIT: I just can't seem to decide if religeon should be spelled with an 'e' or an 'i'.

 

Isn't that basically what "Separation of Church and State" means? All the examples except the last one actually separates the church from the state, which is the reasonable thing to do. Until you have changed your national motto back from "In God We Trust", you can't claim that your country isn't a Christian country, which I believe is a requirement for religious freedom.

And, Blinky, if I'm what you'd call "educated", it's probably because I really have no idea in which way those examples from Japes are bad, and I don't know a lot of American history. So I guess "uneducated"'d fit me better.

You spell it religion.

 

I'm torn on the issue of removing Christian symbols from government establishments. On the one hand, I understand that while Christians are still the majority, the minority religions/beliefs are feeling impressed upon. However, I know for myself that if another religion was featured prominently in the government, I could give a damn. It doesn't affect my faith. Also, it's damned annoying that I can no longer say "Christmas break," I have to call it "Winter break." For me it ends up being alot like the race debate. Blacks complain about discrimination all the time, but if one of them calls me cracker it's okay. I don't mind being called cracker, but if they get to say it, I get to say nigger. Same with religion. If I can't practice my religion in public, neither can you.

 

Blending government and religion is a very noxious combination. There was some guy who said it best, I think he was from Nazareth or something: "Render unto God those things that are God's and unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's."

Personally, I don't think it's necessarily bad to have certain tastefully sized symbols of religion in government areas, however tact has to be shown, because if underneat the sign that says courthouse there's a big, old gold cross, people might get the wrong idea. Our government was founded on Judeo-Christian INFLUENCE, not Judeo-Christian tenets. That said, if a judge is muslim, he's going to have Islamic influences, and should have a write to display his faith equally. This 10 commandment issue is a tad misleading, because it wasn't as if the judge had a simple plaque or a picture of them, I think it was something like a 10-ten statue of them that was just sitting in his courtroom. Somewhat imposing.

Firstly, I was whole-heartedly convinced our national motto was "Play ball," but that's besides the point. My personal beliefs are that there is one great trade-off in the area of freedom of thought/expression/religion/etc. You either get freedom, or you get 'protection,' the meaning of which I will elaborate. You can either free to express yourself however you wish, or you can be protected from ever having to listen to something that might offend you, see something that might shock you, or meet someone who just might think differently than you do about something and not be afraid to say it. Our founding fathers made a choice about which they wanted, and if you really think it's a bad choice, I will personally arrange your flight to some other country who's views on civil rights are more conservative. For this reason, I don't give two shits what you call your vacation, the most sincere holiday wishes I get are from Jews and Muslims who want to wish me a happy Hanukah or Ramadan, not because they somehow think I'm going to convert, but because they realize that those holidays are about peace and happiness and goodwill towards man, and they aren't quite provincial enough to think those thoughts should only be focused to members of their temple/mosque.

Math, perhaps you're not familiar with the American phenomenon of getting a degree and thinking that implies you really know anything, but it's far more widespread than one would hope. Education doesn't, or rather, shouldn't, qualify someone to interpret rules and laws, because there is no Common-Fucking-Sense 101 class at most universities. Truly intelligent people can see through the bullshit, but the 'educated' masses soak it up, thinking that if it means anything.

 

I'm sorry, but as a man who hasn't gotten lucky in about 3 years, I just need to find out more about the woman in the burqa. Her body is incredible, and her eyes...holy shit, her eyes.

Anyway, the way I see it, religious laws are great guidelines for federal laws in the US, or anywhere, really. However, they should not be taken verbatim for all instances of social infraction.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife;

If you really look into that sentence, that commandment, you'll see that it's saying women are property, and you shouldn't be jealous of things other people have.

While it makes sense to know not to be jealous, no self-respecting man should ever consider his wife to be property, and no self respecting woman should see herself as property. Why? Property is not sentient.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the word 'property' in that scentence. Marriage, in the biblical sense, is when two people, a man and a woman, become 'one,' or a single unit. So a mans' wife does not just belong to him, she is a part of him and he is a part of her, and seeking to break the ties that bind them together is far worse than mere theft of property.

 

Until somewhat recently in western cultures, a woman - and the children for that matter - were considered property of the man. This attitude is still in effect throughout much of the world. Just ask any of the locals, Japes.

 

How recently was that? Before America was established as a nation?

Japes, of course the 2nd is the most important Amendment. My favorite.

And DE, Japes already more or less answered your question about "separation of church and state" limiting people's religious freedom. Not allowing a nativity scene on public property is a bunch of bullshit because most people in most communities in this country want that kind of thing on display. Just because a few Muslims and communist neo-Pagan ACLU clowns are "offended" doesn't mean everyone else should suffer.

 

This recent enough for you? -

Up until the beginning of the last century, when a woman who own property in America married, her husband immediately became the owner.

1973 - Ross County, Ohio. A distant cousin of mine and the woman he was bedding were shot and killed by her husband. The husband evaded prison because an old law, still on the books, allowed for the murder of an unfaithful wife provided you killed her lover as well. That law was struck down later that year.

February 1991: My wife and I ran into a lingering fragment of the male dominance custom with our marriage vows. Non-denominational ceremony, nothing fancy - but as we were picking out which vows we liked from the more traditional-sounding ones, we noticed there was only two; maybe three; that didn't have the words "...love, honor, and obey...." as the woman's vows. What we ultimately chose was still considered progressive at the time.

2007 - In some states - Oregon, for example - it is still perfectly legal for a father to sell his children to people he considers "to be of good character". This can be done without the mother's consent - but she has to prove that the consent wasn't given or implied.

And this is in America.
Still think it can't happen in countries and cultures where "honor killings" and/or female mutilation are the social norm?