That’s how I’ve felt for -years-, man. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you believe in the right to own a gun and the right of a woman to get an abortion, then almost anyone you meet will think that’s one right too many. S’frustratin’.

I’m sick of the far right trying to replace the constitution with the old testament. Otherwise I love Republicans! I was always taught it was impolite to talk about religion in public.

I have no problem with Christians, it’s the Evangelical crap that really really pisses me off.  The liberals do the same shit (except they are tratiors to boot) just on the other side.

This country is being run by zealots that 70 years ago would have been wandering the streets muttering to themselves. If we don’t get some REAL people running this country we’re screwed!

I’m sick of the far right trying to replace the constitution with the old testament.

I’m equally sick of the far left trying to replace the constitution with a mishmash of the Communist Manifesto and the Satanic Bible (“‘Do What Thou Wilt’ shall be the whole of the Law.")

You don’t want to worship? Fine, you have that right. What you do NOT have is the right to be so offended that no one else gets to worship, either. People on the far left seem to forget there is more to the Freedom of Religion that the prohibition against a State-mandated religion. There is also the second clause - “or prohibit the free exercise thereof”.

If we don’t get some REAL people running this country we’re screwed!

Judging by that statement, you’re already screwed…

There is also the second clause - “or prohibit the free exercise thereof”.

I’m pretty anti-Religion™ myself, but Drum is way, way on the money here.  We have to protect the rights of those who choose to believe and want to worship.

Let me drill down to draw another distinction though.  Far too many times, courts in this country have ruled against private entities that, for reasons of their own, either wish to remove or embrace religiousness.  This is simply wrong.  The constitution prevents the GOVERNMENT from embracing or surpressing a religion...not priovate enterprise.  We’re carrying hundreds, maybe thousands of laws on the books around this country that are undeniably unconstitutional.

Exactly. The Boy Scouts have the right to pick and choose their membership based on whatever criteria appeals to them. So do country clubs and privately financed schools and colleges. If that means excluding by ethnicity, age, gender or sexual preference, that is a choice they have the right to make.

Anyone want to take a guess why? I’ll give you a hint - the First Amendment.

Hey Drum, I’m with you to a point. My issue is that I am now always hearing “Well the country is 85% Christian” so we can do this and impose that because we are the majority. I always thought of religion as a private matter. Once it mixes with policy you go way to far to the right. I could care less if people say Merry Christmas (I do)and all of that other crap but when people start trying to take away South Park and censor movies because of their interpretaion of what God wants I have an issue.

And for the record the whole left could all die and my life would be grratly improved. I wasn’t talking about Bush either as I think he, much like Reagan, doesn’t wear his faith on his sleeve or at least believe his is the ONLY right way to worship. My point was more that the more I hear the far right the more I feel left out of the Right I love.

Religion is a wonderful thing but we have seen thoughout history what has happened when Religious Zealots have had too much power. It is the zealots I fear...and on both sides

My issue is that I am now always hearing “Well the country is 85% Christian” so we can do this and impose that because we are the majority.

No one is “imposing” anything. If you don’t want to celebrate - DON’T. That’s called “Freedom of Religion”, since there are several religions that don’t celebrate Christmas, and you even have the right to not celebrate any religion - or religious holidays - at all.

What you DON’T have is the right to whine about everyone else having the same rights that you do.

but when people start trying to take away South Park and censor movies because of their interpretaion of what God wants I have an issue.

That isn’t about religion so much as it is about “control”. Which is why I am very careful about knowing - and disseminating - the difference between “acknowledging” religion and “endorsing” it. One is legal, one is not.

Even so, the First Amendment only limits Congress, not the States, not the cities and not the various private groups. (For example, in Utah, you’ll never manage to succeed in politics unless you are an open-handed member of the LDS church in good standing, plain and simple. Since I don’t think I would agree with that, I don’t live in Utah. See how simple that is?

It is the zealots I fear...and on both sides

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

Don’t believe me? Crack a history book. Hell, crack a modern law book and see how many of our laws are based upon enforcing the moral code of religion(s) - laws forbidding acts which are harmless in and of themselves, but which are outlawed to save Man from his own baser natures.

For example, public drunkenness. Is there any harm in being drunk in public? No, of course not. Emabarrassing, perhaps, offensive to some, certainly, but harmful? Don’t be silly. I’m not talking about getting behind the wheel of a vehicle and trying out for the Indy team on I-95, because there is a clear and definable risk of great harm involved with that, but just sitting on the corner bus bench and sipping a beer is illegal.

Why? Because being drunk is a “sin”. It is offensive to the mores of a powerful sect, and so laws have been passed against it.

Blue laws, anti-drug laws, nudity taboos, “offensive language”, the whole kit and/or kaboodle of trying to limit what a man can do or say for no other reason than it might “offend” someone.

I think we should eliminate any laws on the books that cannot show a clear harm (or clear risk of harm) to another living person (as distinct from a corporation).