History's Greatest Holocaust Via Atheistic Ideology

Buz, I was trying to help you comprehend what was written by others. You don't have to agree, but if you can't even understand what others are claiming then your responses are directed at a strawman.You quoted once sentence from holmes article, as if he was claiming that whereever atheism goes there is no persecution or afflication. Reading the context, it is clear he was doing no such thing.Cheers -- Sylas

You missed my point, being that you elect people who do the things you want them to do and implementing the things you want done in and by government. If you want secularist agendas in government minus the exercising of various religious acts or conotations, then you vote secularist minded folks into the government offices instead of whining and fretting about stuff religious folks do in government, calling for additional restrictive laws contrary to the first amendment which forbids restriction of religious exercise.

Hi Silas. I suggest you cut and paste exactly what I said that was incorrect and explain specifically how it was in error.

If this is the whole point, why didn't you just say so and save my tired eyes?Anyhow, about that spinword, "dictate." Policy via majority vote is not dictatorship as you spin implies. Majority implemented policy is how free nations function. Unelected judges were never intended for implementing law via the judiciary as is being done today. Laws are for Congress to make and now the hoards of hyper lawyers and judges are using all kinds of new gimmics to curcumvent the ballot box representation and riddling the Constitution with all kinds of divisive revisionist rulings. The place is being invaded and over-run by these hoards of money hungry people undermining all that we've stood for all these blessed years of this republic.

You make it sound like it's only a conservative thing. The movement so far has been to change the law through liberal judges!

The error was in Message 224; you quoted one sentence only from holmes' article, with no context. Just quoting your article does not reveal any error. As has been explained umpteen times, the error seen by looking at the context of holmes' remark, which is seen in Message 218.If you think the sentence you quoted was an expression of holmes' own opinion, then you have a serious reading comprehension problem. If you recognize that the sentence was not an expression of holmes' own opinion, then you have an even worse problem with integrity and honest discussion.Sheesh -- Sylas

quote:

---

This's what the Constitution calls for in the land of the free where the minority is not suppose to coerce judges for what they want, but where minority become the majority via the old fashioned way. They work for it.

---

Holmes covered your post well, but I just had to comment on this bit of your post.Your statement has got to be one of the most un-American things I have ever read!The "majority rules" in a democracy, sure, but not in matters of civil rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.Our government is specifically-designed to protect the individual's Constitutional rights from the "tyranny of the majority".That's what the Establishment Clause of our Constitution is all about, buz.Our founders were very wise to put in place protections for me from people like you who would seek to impose their particular religious views upon me, and the rest of the country, simply because you can gang up on us.

quote:

---

You missed my point, being that you elect people who do the things you want them to do and implementing the things you want done in and by government. If you want secularist agendas in government minus the exercising of various religious acts or conotations, then you vote secularist minded folks into the government offices

---

Buz, our government is secular by design.If highly religious people get elected by other highly-religious people to establish a state religion, for example, that would be unconstitutional and also runs counter to everything our founding fathers stood for.I am shocked at how you continually make a mockery of our Constitution and Bill of Rights by advocating "majority rule" in precisely the way the founders wanted to avoid.

quote:

---

instead of whining and fretting about stuff religious folks do in government, calling for additional restrictive laws contrary to the first amendment which forbids restriction of religious exercise.

---

...such as?

quote:

---

Anyhow, about that spinword, "dictate." Policy via majority vote is not dictatorship as you spin implies. Majority implemented policy is how free nations function.

---

...except in the case of out individual Constitutional rights.The majority holds no sway in these matters at all, except in the case of a constitutional amendment.I fear the day anyone like you gets the power to change our Constitution, Buz.

quote:

---

Unelected judges were never intended for implementing law via the judiciary as is being done today. Laws are for Congress to make

---

Judges are not elected by design, buz, so that they can be free of the pressures from constituents and the general political pressures elected officals are subject to. Their job is to interpret the law through the Constitution and Bill of Rights and they should not be beholden to any particular group.Judges are also intended to act as a check on Congress if it ever oversteps it's bounds and tries to enact laws which threaten anyone's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.Why you seem to think that the majority religion in this country should have the right to do whatever it wants is beyond me.

quote:

---

being that you elect people who do the things you want them to do and implementing the things you want done in and by government.

---

You missed my point, elected officials often do things that they want, wholly separate from what we want. That includes budgets and rules of order. I'm pretty sure most people do not want to give our congress the pay raises they keep giving themselves, but they do. Likewise with the religious trappings for no reason.

quote:

---

If you want secularist agendas in government

---

What the hell is a secularist agenda? The government is SECULAR. It's supposed to be SECULAR. The reps can be whatever they want, but they are supposed to be concentrating their gov't worktime on issues of state, and not the state of all its citizens in the afterlife.

quote:

---

calling for additional restrictive laws contrary to the first amendment which forbids restriction of religious exercise.

---

Not that I am against things like Xmas trees, or personal statements of belief, but I am against proselytizing from the podium and permanent displays of faith in government operated institutions. I am uncertain how not allowing a humongous rock commemorating the ten commandments at a courthouse restricts religious exercise at all. You'll have to point out the bible passage that says thou shalt make graven images...And by the way the 1st amendment is a twoedged sword. The government may not restrict nor promote religion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

If this is the whole point, why didn't you just say so and save my tired eyes?

---

I was saying that was the point of the US government as seen in the US Bill of Rights and not the point of my post.Perhaps your tired eyes are what prevent you from reading the Constitution thoroughly?But I just realized the irony here. You consistently criticize me for length of posts (no matter the length it appears). You also appear to have a problem with your eyes? Thus you cannot understand my points.If my posts pose this much of a problem for you, how on earth do you get through the bible which is massive and longwinded?

quote:

---

Policy via majority vote is not dictatorship as you spin implies.

---

Apparently your eyes are so shifty they cannot hold on to the end of one sentence. I said majorities cannot dictate EVERYTHING. When majorities can set policy on everything under the sun, then it is a dictatorship. That's why we have a Bill of Rights which puts limits on the majority.Judges, if you are not aware, provide a check against legislatures and executives by their ability to judge laws against provisions in the Constitution. That's exactly what they are supposed to do.That said, I do believe there are judges who go beyond the constitutional requirements in order to set their own policy. We see this on the left and the right. We just don't here any complaints from conservatives when the rogue judges are conservatives. Bush just snuck one past Congress last week.Let's hear you knocking ALL rogue judges (like I do), and supporting an amendment not to define marriage (which is a one issue device), but to limit the scope of Judgements to not defining law beyond constitutional or not.

quote:

---

The place is being invaded and over-run by these hoards of money hungry people undermining all that we've stood for all these blessed years of this republic.

---

By that I assume you mean the neo-cons and the Bush dynasty?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

You make it sound like it's only a conservative thing

---

No, you read into my counterevidence that I was saying it only went one way.My position is that there are "rogue judges" on all sides of issues. Both liberals and conservatives try to take advantage to put such judges in the courts. This is bad.Although I want to make clear, undercutting legislatures is not itself being a rogue judge. They are designed to be a check on power. The real problem is when they lace their interpretations of Constitutional requirements with active instructions on what they want to see.In other words they draft their own bill by saying what the legislatures MUST do to appease them. While their reasoning can be as flighty as they want, their instructions should be listing basic deficiencies to allow legislatures to figure their own way around the problem.

quote:

---

The movement so far has been to change the law through liberal judges!

---

What the hell are you talking about? Its an open conservative agenda (and conservatives have power over the entire federal gov't right now) to put idealogues on the bench wherever they can. Exactly how are liberals doing this when they have no power to appoint them on the federal level?If, you are talking about the local level, they do not make decisions that cannot be removed by federal judges. That is why the focus (and so the only real "movement" in play) is at the federal level.You saw this power clearly when a conservative led SC defied years of precedent (and an amendment) to overrule a state court's decision, and LEGISLATED FOR FLORIDA AND THE US that Bush had to be installed as President by default.Since then it has been one power play after another. Bush just installed, and avoided congressional control, another conservative rogue judge last week.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It's called past appointments by Clinton and Carter. Yes, Reagan and Bush-1 also appointed Federal Judges. The rift over this issue has led to a practical stalemate of appointing judges.And regarding the presidential election, Gore was trying to reverse what happened, and to re-count to his advantage. Remember the military votes? Both sides used the legal system, and since Gore came out on the short end, he was the one who kept taking legal angles.

I thought he was suggesting that HIV infection is the
result of immoral conduct, and that the reason for high
instances in Africa was that they were all athiests with
the morals of a goat.-- What morals DO goats have BTW? If he is saying that AIDS, Dictators, and poverty are marks
of a lack of a firm social base then both the UK and
US qualify IMO.

quote:

---

I thought he was suggesting that HIV infection is the result of immoral conduct, and that the reason for high instances in Africa was that they were all athiests with the morals of a goat.

---

Take a look back at his post, he said that he saw NO atheist populations in Africa, etc etc... Unless... you mean that it is the atheists dying of AIDs in Africa? I guess he could have been saying that, but then the rest of the points don't follow as well (dictators, poverty).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)