posted on November 11, 2004 01:45:55 PM
In all of the discussions re Iraq & the administration's policies in general, there is a concurrent theme critical of and alarmed by the religious tenets maintained and promulgated by the administration and its supporters.
I can think it fair to say that a significant portion of the population is uncomfortable with what they interpret as religious beliefs, as maintained by public officials, unduly influencing public policy.
Along those lines I found the following site very informative...and paradoxical for both sides of the argument.
First, I believe the page to be accurate insofar as the quotes represented appear contextual and from my knowledge of the Paine citation particularly, true to the source.
The page author makes a good point by underscoring the fact that much of this was taken from private correspondence and thus a truer representation of individual mind-set than public utterances and writings.
After reading, I think it safe to say the brain-trust of the republic was deeply suspicious & even hostile towards established religion.
Apart from logical conundrums with the Trinity & Virgin Birth, etc.., they uniformly abhorred organized religion's historical position as opposing, suppressing and persecuting free thought. Something(free thought)these gentlemen, most notably Thomas Paine, practically invented.
They were theists,naturalists, god as essence kind of guys. But "religious" as in church going? No way.
I'd venture that if you'd published any of these quotes,modernize the language & attribute them to current politician the next sound heard would be all hell breaking loose.
So, the administration's opponents(as regards religion) have a valid point insofar as the founders were extremely leery of established religion sticking its nose into government. Curiously enough,one could argue that the entire concept of our form of government is a monumental counter statement against organized religion.
But then, as the most circumspect of the founders, Washington said:"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.".
In other words:" can't live with 'em, can't endure without 'em".
And all the others,at least publicly, would have to agree.
So, in sum, its dangerous for a public official to actually believe what he says re religion and its role in governance & law.
Thus I appreciate and applaud the hard questions from the opposition in this regard.
On the other hand, what is also abundantly clear in these writings and directly applicable to the war against Islamic Fascism, is the founders profound fear and understanding of the threat of religious absolutism:
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
While it may be accurately pointed out that these quotes concerned Christianity, what they were essentially addressing was an absolutist's orthodoxy completely consistent with Islamic Fascism and its goals, namely the re-establishment of the Caliphate,its lost empire and the destruction of all non-believers.
Hence the paradox I mentioned earlier. The Founders understood well the primary necessity of separation of church & state if liberty was to flourish.
Consistent with this is, I believe, a reasonable extrapolation that they were also speaking to the very real threat that unchallenged religious extremism poses to freedom as a whole.
We have been at war for a over a century now, rectifying the profound disorder visited upon the world by the European powers, each in turn in their thirst for empire.
That these same countries would deliver to us these astounding minds referenced above is no mere accident; almost as if all that was most worthy in Western Civilization was sent forth in a lifeboat to these shores.
We are at war with what the founders feared most, the tyranny, as Jacob Bronowski once said, of Absolute Certainty and this truly has been the case for the last 100 years.
"Drop, drop — in our sleep, upon the heart sorrow falls, memory's pain, and to us, though against our very will, even in our own despite, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God"
~Aeschylus
[ edited by pandorasbox on Nov 11, 2004 01:47 PM ]
[ edited by pandorasbox on Nov 11, 2004 02:41 PM ]
posted on November 11, 2004 03:01:16 PM
After the creation of the Anglican Church (by Henry VIII, the head of a GOVERNMENT), many people not following his line of thinking were persecuted. Many Protestants throughout Europe were persecuted by the Pope or Holy Roman Emperor during the same time period. Many of these persecutees came to the New World to avoid this persecution.
When the time eventually came to create a new country in the new world, they all knew what they didn't want, and that was government interference in their religious beliefs.
So they creared the seperation of Church & State. Not to keep the church out of the state, but to keep the state out of the church.
Regardless of the founding fathers personal beliefs, they simply didn't want the government establishing a state religion.
I'm sure most of them would be turning over in their graves to see where their good ideas and ideals have led.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on November 11, 2004 04:03:34 PM
That's very interesting.
From your post...
But then, as the most circumspect of the founders, Washington said:"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.".
I believe without a doubt that morality can be maintained without religion. In the link, George Washington, who was not a believer went on to say, "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." I suppose he advised caution for political advantage and support.
posted on November 11, 2004 06:24:35 PM
"I believe without a doubt that morality can be maintained without religion."
OK, then answer this. Just hypothetically.
If there is no religion, then WHY be moral? What justifiction is there?
I'm not saying without religion we'd all be serial killers, but without religion, what would stop immorality from running rampant?
What motivation would there be in helping the poor?
What motivation would there be to help anyone other than ourselves?
Relion does in fact support the state as Washington said. It promotes a kind of ingrained morality that you just can't legislate. For example, there are laws that say you can't lie on your taxes, but lots of people do it. Morality is what keeps people from doing it.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on November 11, 2004 07:08:20 PM
First, I agree 100% with replaymedia.
I believe from all I've read that our Forefathers intent was to keep government from declaring one religion that all would be forced to follow. That what they wanted was freedom from the Church of England.
And I will remind everyone that the so called separation of church and state was an arguing point between our founders, as to how our Constitution would finally end up being written. It caused much debate. And it is NOT mentioned anywhere in the original finished Constitution.
Imo, because one man wrote a letter stating HIS intent/view/opinion does not in anyway mean that all were in agreement on that issue.
I further believe most of our founding fathers WERE religious based and most were Christians...of different denominations. If we look to the formation of all our states as they entered the 'Union'....either God, Almighty, etc is mentioned in EACH states constitutions.
I disagree with helen and all the secularists/agnostics/atheists who I believe are trying to re-write history by saying G. Washington was not a believer. His own adopted daughter, who lived with him for 20 years said he was. His own quotes speak to a God..an Almight..Lord...Christ...etc. And history as told us he attended Church each Sunday. He helped form a Church and he is quoted many times referring to the same.
There are many references given that support the belief that G. Washington DID believe in God.
And imo, no matter how hard secularists try to discount those who believe in God, rewrite history, religion always has been and will continue to be where most learn their morals/values that then are applied to their everyday lives. You won't ever separate a man/woman from his faith.
posted on November 11, 2004 07:41:19 PMGeorge Washington
"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."--George Washington,_2000_Years_of_Disbelief_, James A. Haught
I can copy paste George Washington's oath of office in which he never mentioned God or religion.
Maybe you should read the link provided by Pandorasbox.
posted on November 11, 2004 07:51:35 PM
First I did read it helen. It gives no references...just speaks to what 'probably' happened.
Second how can you read George Washington's prayer journal...that I linked to and say he's a non-believer? That's a terrific case of denial you're entering again. Or maybe as an atheist you pray in the same manner he did in the morning and at night. Maybe there's a painting of you kneeling beside your horse in prayer. LOL
edited to add: Maybe you also attend church regularly....and served the church as an elder of the church. And of course your friends will also vouch for your belief in God....and your family members too.
I don't think so..why? Because you ARE a non-believe....he wasn't.
And of course you who so oppose religion can't overlook that fact that clinton [mainly lip service to his beliefs] and carter [very religious] were religious too. So blaming the 'right' who are religious for everything really doesn't cut the mustard. We haven't had an atheist president yet. And I believe only on agnostic in our country's whole history.
Then, of course, there's kerry who suddenly 'found' religion when he saw the polls were concerned about his pro-abortion and other anti-Catholic positions.
On one of the links I provided it also clarifies quotes that the lefties have attributed to G. Washington...that he never said...someone else did.
Again...quit trying to re-write history.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
I believe without a doubt that morality can be maintained without religion. In the link, George Washington, who was not a believer......
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 11, 2004 08:00 PM ]
posted on November 11, 2004 08:18:00 PM"And of course you who so oppose religion can't overlook that fact that clinton [mainly lip service to his beliefs] and carter [very religious] were religious too. So blaming the 'right' who are religious for everything really doesn't cut the mustard. We haven't had an atheist president yet. And I believe only on agnostic in our country's whole history."
Linda, You are again making up thoughts that I have never expressed. How do you know that I so oppose religion? I believe that religion should be a personal choice. My choice, based on my experience and education is not to believe in or practice any religion.
This thread is NOT about me, linda. I think that it's about the separation of church and state among other considerations. The right has been mentioned because they would like to lessen the separation of church and state, as you know.
"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian"--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420
posted on November 11, 2004 08:25:12 PM
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." – Thomas Jefferson (1781)
-----------------------------------
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)
posted on November 11, 2004 08:37:46 PM
helen - You're right...it's not about you. It is however about the FALSE statement you made saying G. Washington was NOT a believer.
How do I know how you feel about religion and the separation of church and state? Because I've posted on here longer than you have and I've read all you've had to say on the subject.
And yes...we all have the right to believe or not believe....that is part of our religious freedom. The freedom I believe the left is constantly working to erode.
And I took pandorasbox's post to be asking can one be moral without religion/religious training.
----------------------
replaymedia - On this site they list three....and I'm sorry when I did this research months ago [maybe a year ago I only saw one president who was listed as an agnostic...and I can't remember who it was...sorry.]
posted on November 11, 2004 09:12:24 PM
Replay poses an interesting question:
"If there is no religion, then WHY be moral? What justification is there?".
Thomas Hobbes covered this in the Leviathan, morals (the basis for civilized life) arose when out of self-interest, to live at peace, individuals banded together to make covenants or contracts to limit violence and oppression.
We are moral because it is in our mutual interest to be so.
Some believe religion follows this agreement, codifying the arrangement while others believe it is imparted by their respective deity.
The trouble starts with the latter, who have historically tended to impose their agreement /morals upon their neighbors.
BTW, I know several moral atheists. At least I think they're moral...but I can't actually say if they cheat on their taxes or not.
"Drop, drop — in our sleep, upon the heart sorrow falls, memory's pain, and to us, though against our very will, even in our own despite, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God"
~Aeschylus
posted on November 11, 2004 09:25:54 PM
replay - I did a quick google to see if I could find who it was...couldn't find it...but there's a recent article from ABC that I'll post the link to that says it was Lincoln...who supposedly stated himself he was agnostic.
Then there's also this list of presidential and Founding Fathers religious affiliations:
pandorasbox - Since you're new to this board, you're most likely not aware that we've repeatedly discussed the subject of what religion our Founding Father's were and also the religion of our Presidents. There is much disagreement about whether our country was founded on Christian principles or not.
But discussing the moral values issue and how we learn or don't learn them is somewhat a different 'take' on the subject. I would be interested in hearing answers to replay's question also.
edited to add link that includes Lincoln saying he was agnostic.
posted on November 11, 2004 09:37:45 PM
It's not that George Washington wasn't a "believer", it's just that he was not a Christian. Nor were many of the prominent Founding Fathers. He,and they, were Deists not Christians.
Replay: I believe it was Andrew Johnson who was agnostic.
As for the question "If there is no religion, then WHY be moral? What justifiction is there?", the answer is simple. We are social animals; as such we must follow certain rules of behavior in order to get along with our fellows. Good behavior (aka morals) is rewarded in varying ways all of which add up to happiness. Bad behavior brings negative results. As for helping others--humans feel compassion, whether religious or not. And it feels good to help others. So why not?
Heck, you don't even have to be human to help others, much less follow or believe in any religion. Look at vampire bats--if any of their flock fails to feed during a night, the others will regurgitate and share what they got. And studies have shown that those bats who don't share, don't get taken care of themselves when they need it. Many other animals have also displayed the same sort of help for peer in need.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on November 11, 2004 10:10:24 PM
bunni - It's an argument that will never be agreed upon. Just like what the 'intent' of some of the clauses in our Constitution mean won't be either. It's all how we each interpret what is said.
No one will ever convince me that a man that prayed day and night, went to church, has a daughter who says he did believe in God...and I even read a quote where Thomas Jefferson said he was...will convince me otherwise.
I truly believe this is part of the secularists agenda to convince people our Founding Fathers weren't religious men...believers...in God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
edited to add: No one can deny this.....from my above link:
George Washington:
Farewell Address: The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..." | photo of Farewell address original manuscript
---
? It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.?
?What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.? [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]
During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words ?So help me God!? to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.
Nelly Custis-Lewis (Washington?s adopted daughter):
Is it necessary that any one should [ask], ?Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."
---
Washington's prayer:
? O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.?
? I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not.
I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as
I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.?
George Washington; from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752
William J. Johnson George Washington, the Christian (New York: The Abingdon Press, New York & Cincinnati, 1919), pp. 24-35.]
Click here for George Washington's Prayer Journal
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 11, 2004 10:28 PM ]
posted on November 11, 2004 11:58:54 PM
For Pete's sake linduh, all right already!
Sheesh, Helen and others let this anal , tunnel-visioned most boring human being on the face of the earth have the POINT, the prize , the trophy for winning whatever this argument is about....oh, ya, somebody who died 200 years ago....and she talks about others posting outdated news!
What possible difference can it make to anybody if Washington worshipped Scottish terriers!
posted on November 12, 2004 04:15:44 AM
"Good behavior (aka morals) is rewarded in varying ways all of which add up to happiness"
OK, now we're getting to an interesting point!
Good Behavior DOES NOT equal to morals. As you said, there are many, many very good, law-abiding atheists out there, I know several myself. But I hesitate to call them moral for the very question we are discussing.
You say it's for mutual self protection and support, etc. I agree that's the reason atheists don't go around killing and stealing- they'd go to jail or face retaliation.
But let's go back to my other example.
WHY WOULDN'T an atheist cheat on his taxes? Let's assume there is no possibility of an audit, and he cannot be caught. (Like eBay income or something!)
WIth no fear of God or morals, then why not do it? No one gets hurt. The Government has plenty, and let's say this person was ticked off at the administration anyway. Let's assume no one can find out and catch him either.
Why not lie?
Let's go one more. You're in a dark alley with no one around. Your kids sit at home hungry and on the verge of eviction since you are jobless. Just then, A little old blind woman with a big sack of money walks up and asks directions.
The old woman says she had no relatives and was looking to giv the money to the local church if you can just point the way.
Why not kill her and take the money? No one is nearby, and the old woman wouldn't even see the blow coming. Your family needs the money more than that church.
Without fear of "cosmic justice" why not take it?
Hmmm. Looks like we're having our Friday Morning philosphy lesson...
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on November 12, 2004 06:58:18 AM"Sheesh, Helen and others let this anal , tunnel-visioned most boring human being on the face of the earth have the POINT, the prize , the trophy for winning whatever this argument is about....oh, ya, somebody who died 200 years ago....and she talks about others posting outdated news!"
Crowfarm, I don't know who you are but I can see a pattern of subtle attacks against me such as the one above and not so subtle attacks against most everyone else but your friend , Maggie. I suggest that it would be in your best interest to lay off. Although I dislike linda and disagree with her political position entirely, I think that your attacks on her are grotesque and appalling. As you surely must know by now, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Linda will argue her point for years...She will argue that George Washington was a religious man because his daughter said so and because he owned a prayer book and because he attended church several times. I heard that...and went to bed...not a loser but with the hopeful knowledge that most here could see her argument is weak.
Now that the topic has been defined, why don't you hop in with some *information rather than your nasty mean spirited insults and remarks. Tell these people how and why people can be moral and ethical people without religion. According to those who believe that morality is dependent on religion, no one can be moral unless they live in fear of some punishment such as going to hell or displeasing their God. They feel that they must learn their moral beliefs ONLY from God.
Even children have internalized a knowledge of right and wrong....even children without religious experience. I won't engage in this loathsome argument. If you call that a loss then you don't understand who you are dealing with.
So, crowfarm, please leave me out of your arguments and your little digs and negative comments. I have found that the relief that I feel after turning off your tawdry and innane comments borders on ecstasy. But you won't run me off, Crowfarm. I'm just waiting for the dust to settle.
posted on November 12, 2004 07:08:37 AM
Replay: So you're saying that people of whatever religion are nice simply because they fear their god will smite them? Or is it just Christians you refer to?
And, yes, despite what you says what I discussed does equal morals, which are simply a code of right & wrong behavior. Here is the definition of "morals"--you won't find religion or god anywhere in it:
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>
And it seems to me, by your lights, that I and other athiests hold the higher "moral" ground. We behave in a moral manner because we think it's the right thing to do. Religious people, by your definition, do so because the fear of God or of not attaining heaven has been put into them...
edited to change "while" to "will"
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
[ edited by bunnicula on Nov 12, 2004 05:53 PM ]
posted on November 12, 2004 07:13:16 AM
Oh, I apologize, Helen even though I didn't insult you. The light has come on though.......you NEED linduh!
Sorry, I will back out now that I realize what kind of "relationship" this really is. Been goin on for years and will not end with one feeding off the other.
posted on November 12, 2004 07:58:45 AM
NO, I don't need linda. In fact she is on my internalized ignore most of the time. It's you who NEED linda. Without linda to bash, you have little to say.. And that's a shame because you are so clearly intelligent and knowledgeable about what is happening in the world. You could be such an asset to this board. Do as I try to do...Forget linda.
posted on November 12, 2004 08:38:37 AM
Oh Helen you gotta know linduh will jump all over this "Do as I try to do...Forget linda."
Helen, I'm sorry but if this has been going on for years.....you obviously are so much more intelligent than linda could ever hope to be and but it goes on and on.
Just for a minute consider that maybe I'm attacking your "comfort zone". You've gotten used to besting linda so easily and you don't want that .....interrupted (?). This is hardly an insult so please don't take it that way. You need a more worthy adversary and if linduh's the best the neocons have you won't find one here.
And , Helen, don't lecture me about name calling.....if you've been in here as long as you say you know it's part of RT and those who say differently are just plain lying. Look at how long the "Crucify Crowfarm" thread went on...posters(including myself) loved it! I had a ball and wallowed in all the attention! And everyone else had fun, too!
You've got to admit it lasted a whole lot longer than the laundry detergent or Northern Lights thread lasted, didn't it?????????
So, sorry if I'm a naughty little girl who likes to break "comfort" zones but that's the way it is. AGAIN, for the millionth time, I have received numerous insults, myself,including death wishes and psychopaths like linda and twelve following all my posts with their boring "liar" theme and it hasn't affected me at all.
I'm sorry others have a harder time blowing off something as meaningless as the posts in this chat room.
posted on November 12, 2004 09:29:19 AM
Crowfarm...I'm sorry. Ny reaction was exaggerated.
The truth is that I am doing my best to avoid linda. I have no interest whatsoever in "besting Linda". "Besting linda", in my opinion is not a distinction worthy of note to anyone here.
posted on November 12, 2004 12:53:00 PM
The fact is separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution. Here is a link to the Constitution of The United States. Read it and see if you can find it....it isn't in there. Our Supreme court judges have interpreted the constitution as saying that. So we are being run/governed by the supreme court judges not the President or anyone else.
Something else to think about. The government hasn't separated church from state as they let holidays rule their work time. Just a thought.
THE LAW IS THE LAW
This is one of the best e-mails I have received in a long time!
I hope this makes its way around the USA several times over!!!!!
So Be It!
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So if the US government determines that it is against the law for the words
"under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.
And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to
be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
And since they already have prohibited any prayer in the schools, on which
they deem their authority, then so be it.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I
are in positions to make good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have the American Publics' best
interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot Post His
Commandments in Government buildings, I don't believe the Government and
it's employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations
which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of
American life.
I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter.
After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday,
Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays.
After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry
about getting home for the "Christmas Break."
After all ~ it's just another day.
I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all
government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter.
It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day
of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct".
In fact....
I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for
worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says that it should
be just another day....
What do you all think????
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop
giving in to the minority opinions and begin, once again, to represent the
majority of ALL of the American people.
posted on November 12, 2004 01:10:05 PM
Sounds like good ideas to me. While we're at it, let's get the churches to start paying their fair share of taxes. We're giving their schools money, they run mutual funds and own rental real estate that they sell at profit, why shouldn't they pay??
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
Or maybe as an atheist you pray in the same manner he did in the morning and at night. Maybe there's a painting of you kneeling beside your horse in prayer. LOL
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 11, 2004 09:30 PM ]