AstroProdigy

Ooo I'll help attack FTC.

No real girls said it was cute ;-).

Rofl chicks think its cute ;-). Besides last time I checked I can't get !@#$%^&* from guys so they're not the ones I try to impress.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4024/me1fa2.th.jpg http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7428/me2at7.th.jpg Don't all pounce on ma cawk at once now.

Canada made basketball? WTF?

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~kmjacobs/Political/BushComic.bmp

Oh sorry lust is not evil if you first have been anointed by a wizard...I mean priest and given permission to express one of your most natural human desires. Go look up seven deadly sins. When the religion teaches you that virginity is holy and brings you closer to God it naturally follows that the opposite is evil and brings you closer to the devil. It's the same thing as if invading half the world in the name of self defense is good then doing the same today is also accepted by many Muslims. Is it right? No, but it's a natural reaction to ins!@#$%^&*utions that teach absolutism and a dual world.

Lust is an obvious case where evil is relative. In Christianity this is evil, but in my views as long as no one gets hurt there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. There's certainly nothing "evil" about gluttany and sloth in my view and a limited amount of pride can be a good thing. Again this is just my view and other people's views are different, but all this goes to show is that evil is in the eye of the beholder and there isn't really an "absolute evil" unless there is God and even then it's iffy.

Agnostics are the only ones you can say "don't have a belief" really seeing as they admit they don't know what to believe. Atheists say they KNOW there's no God, but Christians say they KNOW there is a God; since there is as much proof for one as the other both are merely beliefs.

I believe there is evil, but that evil is relative. Whether there is absolute evil or not falls largely to whether you have religious belief or not. I'd like to think breaking with the golden rule is "evil" behavior, but that's just my opinion. Whether killing someone in self defense is evil I'd say it's a justified evil. Stealing from someone who stole all your possessions would also qualify as a justified evil. It's still the wrong thing to do, but there's enough reason to do it to override the moral question. Again this is just my opinion. Other people have their own idea of evil and that's fine.

The Nazis were some sort of scientology? WTF? Their twisted genetic advancement isn't "scientology" it's their twisted form of "science". Science does not equal scientology. The Nazis massacred the Jews for their religion and that was an example of abolishment of religion? That was an example of RELIGION! The Jews were hated for their RELIGION and the classic Christian hatred of the Jews for "killing Jesus". It was once again religiously based like many massacres. If a man works hard and lifts himself out of poverty it isn't the work of God it is the work of the man. If the man wins the lottery then you can call THAT the work of God. A giant sign saying "There is a God" made out of pure light would suffice as proof for anyone not just the poor. Miracles aren't the only proof they're just the nice ones.

Ok well one penny turning into 20 trillion dollars !@#$%^&*umes the currency only increases in value and none of the money being spent. Neither of these are true so I don't see where this analogy works. Forced atheism is bad, but I would hardly say it leads to a lot more problem than organized religion with power. Both lead to disastrous consequences if allowed which just means secularism is the only system that would be good for society and the world. You're right about forced religion leading to athe leader of the culture having total moral authority. Good examples of this are the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, and North Korea under Kim Jung Il. That being said Saudi Arabia, Spain under the Inquisition, and Afghanistan under the Taliban are not my idea of a cup of tea either. The proof is in the pudding. Secularism is the ONLY way that will work.

I personally don't care what people believe as long as they don't get away with essential developments in mankind such as stem cell research nor try to stop important solutions such as reducing our greenhouse gas production; though this is more of a political problem where Christians just happen to be the dumb !@#$%^&*es because they're easier to fool. I also see Christians trying to shove their religion in the name of "let's not just be politically correct all the time". I am very weary of the intentions of evangelicals when I hear them saying the United States was not created with religious freedom in mind and that if you're not a religious Christian you don't belong here. And so the Spaghetti Monster held out his staff and the waters were parted for the cookie monsters to p!@#$%^&* and be free from the health specialists!

Eh don't blame him our education system in the US really is just utter garbage. http://kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=264...invade&nl=1 I think this says a lot. Poor Australia.

Good wholesome Christian education.

I also picked none because I assume that means agnostic. LOL! I'm sure some people on this forum would say that shows patriotism. Are we really going to debate religion? It's not possible to change someone's mind through debate. It's the most closed minded thing there is and people turn off their brains if you try to reason with them about religion so what's the point? People's faiths are their own and in the US everyone is free to believe what they want despite what some people in this forum think that the US is only for Christians.

Reagan never had the audacity to do so. When the former director admits that "no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group" then there is a clear breach of the separation of church and state. All other religious presidents we've had have understood you should not try to merge church and state. It's not just that his decisions are based off of his religious morals it's that he's trying to make Christianity the state religion! I also like how the new supreme court judges who Bush claimed will follow precedent as Bush claimed "activist" judges are the problem have decided to throw all precedence out the window and take an extreme hardliner stance on every issue. These people would call crowning Bush as king cons!@#$%^&*utional.

Office of faith based initiatives.

You can't create a government agency for the promotion of select religions. That's uncons!@#$%^&*utional and Bush has done it for the first time in history. Even the conservative Reagan recognized putting religion directly in the government was wrong.

Masturbation ftw.

We supported repressive regimes all throughout the Cold War and said it was to fight communism. I really don't think I need to provide proof of the US supporting repressive regimes all you have to do is look at the history of each country and a lot of them will include a repressive regime supported by the US. Actually I don't know about you, but what I was seeing on the news was Bush saying Saddam Hussein had weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and links to Al Qaeda. It was even supported by the media and I heard it over and over again by the "liberal" media. I didn't start hearing things about Saddam Hussein oppressing his people except for occasional mention in the media and by the Bush administration until later on. I disagree that Americans favor liberty and peace more than western Europe. A large group of Americans are ecstatic about giving up key liberties when the president tells them to, while Europeans would fight it. France has so many strikes and riots because the French people practice their liberty. People in the United States are much less like that. Not only that, but Americans support peace more than Europe? If anything you'd say Europeans aren't willing to attack repressive regimes BECAUSE they want PEACE instead. The United States is quick to go to WAR because they don't care as much about peace. It's an oxymoron to say going to war is a value of peace whereas not going to war is not a value of peace.

We don't hate repressive regimes more than Europe. We gladly deal with repressive regimes all the time and only tell them to allow more freedoms when they criticize us. Otherwise we have no problems. Europe, on the other hand, while also dealing with repressive regimes, is more willing to criticize them universally. The US fell behind on the protection of freedoms during the Cold War and has only fallen further behind with Bush.

Bush has created an office of religion? The majority of all candidates play to a religion to gain more support, the office is not an office OF religion just because the man in the office is outspoken about his religion. And this is not forbidden by the founding fathers at all. The majority of the founding fathers were all Christian, but thats beside the point. The thing that is forbidden is the state favoring one religion and "forcing" people to take part in religions against their will. That was the founding fathers' intentions. This is simply BS. Just because someone claims to be a "messenger of god" (which i dont think bush has ever claimed) doesn't mean all christians are obligated to follow him. The antichrist himself is supposed to claim to be a messenger of god before he reveals his true self (according to Revelations, which i dont really believe, but im just pointing out that its part of christianity). Any random joe could claim to be a messenger of god. I'm a christian and I don't support bush anymore. I wouldn't say im against him either, but in his second term he's lost my support. None of them actually officially put religion in the executive branch. Saying you're a Christian to get votes and reversing the separation of church and state are completely different. No one before has ever actually put religion in the executive branch until now. Being Christian and making a Christian state are completely different which seems to be something a lot of people forget. Taking steps to encroach on religious freedoms gradually is much more effective than outright declaring a Christian state. The founding fathers would have seen the government actively promoting Christianity (the office of faith based initiatives) as uncons!@#$%^&*utional. I find many people have said Bush is a genuine Christian and is representing God. Bush plays on this too, because he knows there's a 30% base that will always support him like a king as long as he continues to look like he represents God. I'm not trying to say those people are getting Christianity right (they are getting it completely wrong), but they are also the most susceptible group when it comes to manipulation. I didn't say all Christians support Bush or otherwise Bush would have a commanding lead in the country, but the fact that someone so utterly a failure more than ever before still gets those 30% die hards even when his party has abandoned him just goes to show what they'd be willing to support if he goes to church every week and espouses religious rhetoric.

The United States actually fits the profile of a country bent on world conquest much more than Europe. If anything our role as an example for the world has been replaced by Europe. Any times Europe pulls out from helping us (like Iraq) is when it was always controversial to help us and the way we've tried to solve these problems lately has pushed them away. Europe has stepped up to help us many times lately which Aileron seems to forget. Look at the role they've taken in Kosovo and Bosnia. They still help us in Afghanistan too.

The United States isn't quite the same. I'd say the most part of the countries in the Americas have many experiences that are uniquely new world. The fact that the political system is overwhelmingly presidential in the Americas whereas it's overwhelmingly parliamentary or semi-presidential in Europe is a testament to this. There is also the melting pot mentality and the do it yourself dream that is much more common here than in Europe. We also have rather large African populations and a Native American influence that still exists today. For these reasons I'd say while most of our origins come from Europe, we have changed a lot from the mother countries.