Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (208630)	10/26/2004 2:51:39 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574187

Amy, He can believe in God, but the constitution says he needs to stop imposing his brand of religion onto this country. One of the biggest lies coming from the anti-Bush crowd is the notion that Bush is somehow "imposing" his faith upon others. I think I've seen JF and Al bring up religion a LOT more than Bush has. What does that tell us about secularism? It tells you little about secularism but it tells you a lot about how the lines between church and state have blurred under this administration. Its not a surprise that regular church attendees love Bush. ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (208630)	10/26/2004 5:07:35 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574187

Tenchusatsu, RE: "One of the biggest lies coming from the anti-Bush crowd is the notion that Bush is somehow "imposing" his faith upon others." I think you may not be aware that things were different before you were born and people remember how they were. They remember the days back when the country was reasonably unified in believing in the separation of church and govt. People generally understood why it was important not to bring religion into public school. This has changed now. Little by little, there is an eroding of this separation in small ways, but each step is a step. RE: " I've seen JF and Al bring up religion a LOT more than Bush has. What does that tell us" I think they are reacting to the change of how a small group of people believe they have a right to impose religion onto this country, whether that be through their efforts to get prayers into school, their efforts to make women wear essentially what is equivalent to wearing shorts in freezing cold temperatures (i.e. skirts and dresses) because they consider it more religious women attire, etc. Bush has indirectly and directly mobilized these people, whether it be through how he made it legal for the govt to give money to religious entities (I remember back when Congress could not give funds to religious entities due to the 'rule' about the separation of govt and religion.) "Govt religious funds" is a shocking, new phrase to me. There's been a lot of "little" changes and a lot of attempts to make change, that you may not have noticed. Rather than calling people who see these changes "liars", maybe a person might want to ask them about the small changes they see in order to become more aware of how things are changing into a religious state. I don't want our country to become another middle east, where we have Jihad here by some religious fanatics that are confused by what religion really is. This country was founded on the concept of a separation of government and religion, and that's an easy phrase to understand. I've already provided an extensive long post on the specifics of what was precisely said by teh founders of this country in their full context (not taken out of context like one Right-wing poster does on this thread) to make it crystal clear their intentions were to keep religion separate from govt, so am disturbed people violate this rule. And they don't even realize they are violating it, due to a lack of awareness. But someone that grew up back when it was very, very clear there should be a separation of church and govt, these small erosions are hugely noticeable, even though they may not be to a few others that were born later. Those of that notice these 'small' things, will express our concerns about it. The truth is ridiculed when it first comes around, the second time around it is attacked, and the third time it comes around it is self-evident. Regards, Amy J