interesting point. Most people think the declaration and constitution were written with freedom of religion in mind, but it was really freedom of religion for people who believe in Judeo-Christian ethics in mind.

I agree that religion probably shouldnt be involved in the govt, but most people think it should. In God We Trust on our money, students in 98% of public schools reciting the pledge of allegience every morning with the phrase Under God in it ... is this a separation of church and state?

I can't believe I forgot the legalization of pot. Not a smoker, but absurd we jail people for it.

ack it's pretty interesting that you want to explicitly legalize a lot of stuff that would automatically be legal if "let people mind their own business" was the top priority, don't you think?

Ack, I can work with all that stuff. I could happily vote for a candidate like Ron Paul who is dedicated to reducing the size of government while maintaining the infrastructure. I could probably live with just about any candidate the Libertarian Party nominated except for Bob ****ing Barr. I know my stuff is radical, but I think it's correct. In the mean time, I am happy to work with people to make things better given what we have. Decriminalization of drugs, reducing our military presence in other countries, and repealing crap like the Patriot act would be good starts.

lol i see we crossposted

im not really sure how taking in god we trust off our money or banning the pledge of allegience would really help us as a country, but i do recongnize the hypocracy of it and us calling ourselves a free country with freedom of religion and a separation of church and state.

it's not a big deal to me either way.

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
b) I'm not "for governments owning weapons". I'm against restricting the ownership of weapons.

I think ack & I can agree that letting people mind their own business is probably less important than maintaining the infrastructure that government provides, without the more invasive nanny state laws.

You debate like a politician. Not a compliment.

As someone who refused to recite the pledge, I bet most people would be surprised at how much a kid can be ostracized for that. Especially in Georgia.

No, it's not a separation of church and state. Which is too bad and I wish it was, but all things considered, I feel lucky to be an American. On the worldwide scale of religious freedom, we're doing well.

Just to be clear, I'd love to see this changed for the better, I'm just aware it could be a lot worse.

I know what the Korean war is. But I don't see anything about wars being against the US constitution.

Yeah I got threatened for that when I was in the US. First with getting kicked out of school, then with sitting in a classroom for hours (I guess that's some sort of jail sentence) then they gave up. I run good.

There's a reason why it's officially refered to as a "police action" and not a war.

Why don't you just say you're not going to explain what you mean, and save us all some bandwidth?

No, I don't think it's terribly interesting, because letting people mind their own business is pretty damn important to me.

It's no more interesting than pointing out that if we had no constitution, the first thing I'd want to change would be restrictive of people.

The current constitution is overly restrictive. The lack of a constitution is underly restrictive. Pretty simple.

well, it's obviously a bigger deal to the people who would exercise their right to disagree with the majority religious position, which apparently doesn't include you.

I don't plan to engage in homosexual activities (ever) or smoke pot (well, maybe once every year or two), but I'd sure like those things to be legal, because it's the right thing to do.

It's actually true that our constitution is UNDERLY restrictive in that it allows for laws that are overly restrictive. But whatever.

I agree with most of that, but I am not decided on the military side. I'm FAR from a war hawk... but from a moral standpoint, I think you and I have different reactions to seeing civilians being helplessly slaughtered in, say, Africa. I'd sure like to find a way to help those folks out. I have no more right to personal liberties than they do.

im not a Christian by the way, and when Christianity is brought into the govt it does bother me. But it doesnt bother that much, as im aware that most of the country is Christian, and they have the right to speak about it.

Do I think the government should be beyond that? Ideally, yes i suppose. But as I said, the little pieces of religion in the govt doesn't bother me that much so it's not that big of a deal to me i guess

It doesn't bother me at all when people want to speak about it, but I definitely have a problem with institutionalizing it and relating it directly with patriotism.

if i really think about it, the pledge is one i probably would have to agree with you on. You can be patriotic and not believe in God, and the fact that children are forced to saY

the money and presence in the constitution bothers me much less. I'd rather they be gone obviously, but it's nothing like standing up in class and reciting something as a group every morning.

fair point. forcing kids to recite something daily that has under God in it is wrong for a free country. You can be an atheist and be patriotic I agree. I do not believe the pledge of allegience has ever been questioned to the supreme court, and I would have to think that public schools requiring people to say it would have to be unconstitutional. So i'll give you this one

but i dont think that has anything to do with changing the Constitution, because i am saying that requiring the pledge is unconstitutional

they don't force you to say it, it has been taken up a few times in the courts. Shouldn't be said at all though -- I took a lot of ****, including from teachers, from not participating. The ill will (including from teachers) ended up extending to matters far beyond the pledge. The end result is that if you noticeably (but quietly and peacefully) exhibit your right not to participate, there are consequences.

Stopping the pledge of allegiance because people are prejudiced against those who don't want to participate is analogous to banning public washrooms because black people were forced to use a separate one. It doesn't solve the problem (idiocy and prejudice) it just takes away that form of displaying the prejudice.

The point is that if a country can start wars whenever they please while ignoring their own laws then how can you justify that other nations should not own nukes?
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that you are saying the US should be allowed to own nuclear weapons and they are probably one of the most aggressive nations in the world when it comes to use of force so I don't get your argument for disallowing certain other nations to own such weapons. In fact I don't even see any way of judging who should own them and who shouldn't and thus everyone should be allowed to own them.

I do think it is interesting because I do think that those are natural freedoms that don't need any extra document to be legal. Being homosexual, using drugs etc. do not require any extra laws. Human beings own themselves and can do with their body whatever the hell they please as long as they don't invade anyone else's selfownership.
But then again I'm just debating like a politician so whatever.