Now that we won both houses, can we address these things?

[Goblinmonger]

God in the pledge.
Cross road signs put up on state land with state money (a la Utah)
Other seperation of church and state issues.

See, I was told many times on here to shut the hell up about these issues because they would just make it hard for the dems to win anything. So now we can start addressing these problems right? All you that told us to shut up are going to push for these things now right?

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

[Mythsaje]

1. We should, actually.

But we also need to get to the nuts-and-bolts of governing. Healthcare reform. Economic reform. Election reform. Immigration reform. The things that matter on Main Street.

[Vorta]

2. Help in understanding

I don't know what "cross road signs" are; I have never been to Utah. While I object to religious expression in government, I'm usually speaking of religion expressed in law. I also accept that there is a certain amount of religious artifact in our country that isn't going away, and frankly don't see why it has to. We have for comparison some countriesin western Europe which actually have state religions, but which manage to do a pretty good job of keeping a secular government. Technically, we are more secular than they are because we dn't have a state religion.

We know the history of God in the Pledge, but it could now be viewed as one of those artifacts, rather like a signature line on a fouinding document reading "in the year of our Lord 1788", and whether we call it AD or CE we're still counting the years since the alleged birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

I'm not telling you or asking you to shut up. I'm wondering where this falls on your list of national priorities and if it's not too personal a clue as to why that is.

[Igel]

5. Little roadside memorials to crash fatalities.

Nothing much. Just a cross marking where someone died in an accident.

I'd put having Christmas and Thanksgiving be federal holidays above the little crosses--whether there'd be a day of thanksgiving or of prayer was precisely what triggered the "wall of separation" language, and was the breech of separation of church and state that was under discussion.

[Vorta]

6. Thanks. We have those here too. I think they are silly, but the survivors seem to want them.

I think it has something to do with letting the world know someone existed. We also have a fairly new custom around here of people decorating their cars with window soap to the effect: " RIP Anthony. 1992-2006 Love Sis and the boys". I find it strange but it tears me up at the same time.

Those big crosses in Las Cruces NM don't bother me. Neither does the statue of Juniperro Serra on 280 outside San Mateo Ca.

I'm really really angry at the church. I'm probably on someone's watch list for letters I have sent to the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. But I accept that our culture includes a lot of religious artifact and practice. Hell, we still have Roman, Greek, Celtic, Nordic, and Indian artifact hanging around too.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Um, no, not what I'm talking about at all.

First, I am not talking about something paid for by families, but by state sponsored crosses.

Second, I am not talking about LITTLE crosses. I'm talking about these fucking monstrosities:

Tell me that isn't a violation of church state seperation.

[Iris]

11. Aren't those kind of a distraction to drivers?

Possibly causing more wrecks?

Jeez - what if we all put crosses in every location where someone dies?

[Goblinmonger]

12. Oh, I agree

They are 12 frickin' feet tall. And only crosses.

[Vorta]

17. I don't think you'll get traction objecting to a memorial for a dead police officer.

[Goblinmonger]

19. But don't you think

that just helps the theocracy to spread. I have no problem with a memorial for a police officer killed in action. I really don't. What I have a problem with is that memorial--which is paid for by the state and on state property--being a fucking 12-foot cross. That is a violation of the establishment clause. And if good people just say "Well, let them have their memorial" we get one step closer to the theocracy the fundamentalists want.

[Vorta]

25. I think they are screwing with you

I think these memorials are a work around of Establishment in an almost childishly literalistic manner. I also think that living in Utah would be Hell, but I haven't been there and there are some signs the LDS's grip is eroding. I think that what we are witnessing is quite likely the death throes of another ancient religion (Christianity/Judaism/Islam) as it desperately tries to cling to life and legitimacy. I also think that there are a great many people in this world who need to believe in eternal life through the metaphor of a structured belief system (Joseph Campbell's religion as a metaphor for understanding the unknowable).

Even in the bastions of enlightenment, we have educated and intelligent people reviving ancient European belief systems. Some of these people want religion to be very private, and others simply want theirs to be included.

[Igel]

72. It's large.

Larger than I thought. But a number of states do it, and I didn't have in mind the privately issued roadside memorials; I personally think they're a distraction and should be removed, both the state-sponsored and individual-sponsored ones, but a democracy means that the majority get to do some things as long as others' rights aren't infringed.

I also would rather see Xmas restored to a religious day that people are free to observe or not, as they work out with their employers (just like Yom Kippur or Eid al-Adha), and not be an "establishment of religion" that's foisted upon us; same for Thanksgiving. But, again, since a majority want Xmas to be a federal holiday, and a majority like Thanksgiving, which Jefferson said would have been violation of the Constitution, them's the breaks.

My Christian training is utterly devoid of crosses and Christmas. We had no cross, and we kept Passover. I'd like to see the national Xmas tree and the iftar dinners hosted by Congressfolk and in the WH scrapped too, but that's just me.

(on edit: added some negation where it belonged)

[Xenotime]

3. All of these issues and more can be addressed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Those Are Pretty Far Down On The Bottom Of My List Of Things I Want Them To Do,

But to each their own agenda.

[Evoman]

7. Whackjob! Democrats haven't won either the Executive, nor the Judiciary

Return to the back of the bus.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. I think that we just need to make pledge time free speech time in schools

If you want to say "Under God" you are allowed to. If you want to say it without "Under God" you are allowed to. If you want to say "One nation under Bob" you can do that too. That's what America is about, free speech.

[Goblinmonger]

10. Yeah

cause that one atheist kid (or one Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or whatever) that is in a class of all Christians isn't going to be singled out at all for not saying "under God" with the rest of them. How about we just take the bit in our pledge that says our country is "under God" out of the fucking pledge? Or better yet, how about if we stop having a pledge. Do you know the other countries that have a pledge to the flag? I know it is few and Palestine is one of them. I've heard the other but can only remember that it is similarily good company.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Certainly wasn't like that when I was in elementary school

The cool thing to do was to fill the pledge with as many obscenities as possible and hope that the teacher didn't notice.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Curse words is one thing

What would you have done to/thought about the Muslim that said Allah or the atheist that refused to say it? What would your teacher have done then?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goblinmonger]

14. BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Thanks for playing though. Our country WAS NOT founded on Christianity. And the "under God" only came in the pledge during the red scare of the 50s.

We aren't stuck with it; it is just another sign of the creeping theocracy.

On edit: I see you are new here and haven't had this argument 5000 times. Good Deists to see what our founding fathers mostly were. Some were Christian, but not the big names and certainly not "most."

[Vorta]

18. You're correct on the history

I disagree on the assessment though. I don't think it's a sign of creeping theocracy, if anything the government has become more secular since that time. I think it's an artifact, a remnant of the Cold War and Red Scare. If it is removed, it will be relegated to an insignificant bit of trivia in a future game of Trivial Pursuit that it was ever included. If it remains, then it will need to be explained in a time when it's inclusion would be unthinkable.

BTW, the first time I refused to say the Pledge was in ninth grade. It has nothing to do with god, it was about Vietnam. If you get rid of the pledge, a harmless path of protest is gone.

[Goblinmonger]

20. You would perhaps be surprised

at the number of times I have been in a discussion about the founding of our nation not being by Christians and people use the pledge as proof that I am wrong. "It's in the pledge." Now I can talk to that person about the real history of the pledge and the deist/atheist founders we had. I get that is an opportunity to discuss real history. But they can blow me off as an idiot. And even if they don't, I can't possibly get to everyone. It has an impact. So does "In God We Trust" on our money. Little artifacts like that only help to support the idea that we are a Christian nation and excuse in people's minds the inclusion of other violations.

[Vorta]

23. a Christian nation

Little artifacts like that only help to support the idea that we are a Christian nation and excuse in people's minds the inclusion of other violations.

I was thinking about our discussion nearly the moment I woke up. It's always more fun to use the power of a bully against himself. So let's think about what would happen if we try to remove "God" from the POA. It will give the GOP a weapon that they will use to rouse the rabble and even a good chunk of the fringe of the mainstream who find this harmless. They will say that we aren't simply challenging something that was done a half century ago, we are challenging a tradition and a major piece (Christianity) of American culture.

So rather than try to stop their fist with our face, wouldn't it be more fun to duck and watch them fall?

Here's my idea. Instead of pushing to remove "God" from the POA, push to add a little something.

"One nation, under God as you understand it....." or something like that.

They won't be able to say that we are trying to take God out of America, and it will irritate the hell out of them that other beliefs are included.

[Goblinmonger]

24. I like the backhandedness of it

but part of me really dislikes the "let's not do something because it might make the Republicans mad" stance. That is why the Patriot Act passed. Nobody wanted to say anything bad at that point because it might make them look bad.

[roody]

56. I like ...liberty and justice

for all rich, white, men........and OJ Simpson.

[Vorta]

61. On the claim that we are one of few countries with a pledge

... which I found (and find) doubtful, I went looking for the British pledge of allegiance.

Here's what I found:

he United Kingdom’s Pledge of Allegiance

1. I pledge allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth Windsor, to her family and to the monarchy for which it stands: three kingdoms under one queen, infinitely stratified, with such liberties as are granted to the people by parliament and such justice as a judiciary that also makes the laws may allow.

2. I acknowledge that all governmental authority is derived from the Crown and denounce the heresy that is should be derived from the people.

3. Being a Catholic/Hindu/atheist/Methodist/agnostic/Baptist/Muslim/other I recognise the supremacy of the Church of England in all spiritual matters and its right to a privileged place in the government of my new country. Furthermore I freely acknowledge my obligation to give financial support to that Church and recognise the right of its archbishops to sit in the legislature for as long as they hold office in the Church of England and without benefit of election. I acknowledge that the separation of church and state has no place in the traditions of this nation and is therefore of no merit.

4. I renounce for my own part and on behalf of my offspring all aspiration to the office of head of state, accept that second class status is the highest which subjects of the monarch may achieve and acknowledge that only members of the Windsor family, being of Protestant European ancestry, are fit to hold that office.

5. I renounce all claims to the status of equal citizen and accept my duty as a subject to defer to those superior in civil rank whether their status be inherited at birth or bestowed by Her Majesty the Queen.

6. I acknowledge that my civil rights are those bestowed by Parliament, which that same Parliament may remove at any time of its choosing. Acknowledging that an unwritten and ill-defined constitution, subject to such interpretation as expediency may require, is the best guarantee of the rights of free Britons, I disclaim any desire for my rights as a citizen or the powers of the state and the limits to those powers, to be set out in writing,

7. I accept my duty to uphold the laws of this nation and will not, therefore, speak or act in such a manner as might advance a republican form of government, such being alien to the traditions and contrary to the law of my new land. I renounce all claims to sit in the legislature, serve as a police officer or take office as a judge if my beliefs are republican in nature.

[Goblinmonger]

65. I was unclear and I apologize

We are one of just a few countries that have a pledge to our flag.

[Vorta]

69. Take heart. It has to kill the freepers that it was written by a socialist. eom

[Goblinmonger]

73. That's for sure.

Plus the original was not hand over heart but in the air Nazi style.

[newworld]

78. I'M SORRY

......That sounds rediculous.:eyes: :thumbsdown:

[Tyo]

27. That's absolute crap

Our founding fathers did nothing of the sort.

[Jamastiene]

21. Actually, we are getting told to shut up until after '08 now too.

Unfortunately. :eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

22. Somehow

I think there is never really a time when they won't hold us down.

[Jamastiene]

29. We'll have to work through the subculture from now until

'08 and if, a big if, they don't blow that one, we can maybe make it cool to accept us. That might work. Otherwise, I wish I had picked up a gas mask. The bus fumes are getting to me. *cough*

[BeFree]

26. All we gotta say about that is...

....God doesn't need any government trying to tell folks what God is.

The only correct thing govenment can do for God is to make sure everybody is free to have their own ideas about God.

[theboss]

28. I think just keeping radical fundamentalists out of office will solve these issues

And anyway, getting into these fights don't help us. There is so much work to be done that I would hate to lose in 2008 because 50 states have a "Return 'Under God' to the pledge" amendment.

These issues are all Republican traps.

[Goblinmonger]

30. So we should do nothing

that might mobilize the right? What's left for us to do then? The Civil Rights movement in the 60s sure pissed off a lot of conservatives. Should they have held off on that one?

It's just a weak argument for not doing something. Much like the "keep the powder dry" bullshit from the senate while they let satan himself onto the Supreme Court.

[theboss]

31. It's not the "Right" I'm scared of

It's the 85 percent of the population that wants "under God" in the pledge.

You know those districts in Richmond, VA and St. Louis, MO that gave us the Senate? Go around there and ask those voters how many of them want to keep "Under God" in the pledge.

[Goblinmonger]

32. So we shouldn't do what is the right thing to do

because it would piss people off? Slavery? Civil Rights? Women the Vote? Any of those things ringing a bell.

[theboss]

34. I find the moral equilavency of "Under God" to slavery a little shocking

And giving woman the right to vote didn't piss anyone off because it passed via Constitutional Amendment.

Look. First of all, I find no problem with "under God" in the pledge. I think it's one of those weird historical anachronisms that sort of sits above the First Amendment...like saying "God save this honorable court." It's just not that big a deal to me.

Secondly, if you are going to go down for a cause, go down for a good cause. Civil Rights was worth losing the South over. Roadside markers are not.

[Goblinmonger]

35. If you think this is just about roadside markers

then you need to look a little farther. I think that stopping the creeping theocracy in our country is that important. Do you really think a theocracy in america is established overnight? No, it comes in small bits and then, before most people know it, here it is.

"Under God" in the pledge has a whopping 50 years of history behind it. Big. Fucking. Deal. And once we get good people in the United States to believe that anything "sits above" the first amendment we are completed fucked.

Giving women the right to vote didn't piss people off? Seriously? Have you read anything about that cause and all the shit they had to go through? Yeah, it was easy peasy for them. Susan B. Anthony didn't have to do shit. She just stood up one day and said, "Hey, we wanna vote" and the country said "OK, sounds good to me." That's exactly how I remember reading about it.

[Bridget Burke]

33. I'd stop tax money given to "Faith Based Organizations"

Without serious oversight.

The other matters are a very low priority.

[theboss]

36. I agree with that

There are ways to weaken the fundamentalist agenda without attacking sacred cows.

[Bridget Burke]

37. This thread seems meant to shock.

I'm quite fond of Church/State separation. But there are priorities!

[Goblinmonger]

40. No it's not

It is meant for me to vent. Everytime anyone talks about REALLY getting back to seperation of church and state, they are told that they need to be quiet because "other things" are more important. Much like has been said to GLBT activists recently as well. Don't rock the boat because you are only going to give the republicans ammunition. I'm fucking tired of it. The reaction of many here just confirms what I have said.

[Bridget Burke]

41. I don't really think supporting Gay Marriage is the equivalent of

Removing "In God We Trust" from our money. I think it's far more important. And there are better ways of preserving Church/State separation than your little concerns.

And the offensive roadside monuments are mostly in Utah. Let the Utahns handle that.

[Goblinmonger]

42. Not sure you worded the subject right

but you are pissing someone off, regardless.

So let's just let the Mormons have a theocracy in Utah then. Fuck the first amendment. Go batshitcrazy Utah. Do whatever you want. We have more important things to do over here.

See, the problem is that we don't trust in god as a country. We weren't founded on that. There is a damn establishment clause, lest we forget. And you can say that each little individual thing is not big deal, but roll them up together and you have an enourmous ball of shit that is religion entangled with our government and that, my friend, equals theocracy. Now you might not think that is a big deal, but just look back to the last time we had a theocracy in our country. Those bastards did a FINE job of clearing Massachusetts of witches.

[Bridget Burke]

43. Thanks for the heads-up. I re-worded my post.

I still think your priorities are wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

45. But being an English teacher

I'm a good editor :hi:

on edit: replied with some stuff to the wrong place.

[sandnsea]

38. People are dying

Maybe we ought to take care of saving lives first.

[Goblinmonger]

39. Maybe we need to realize that we went to war

because our president received word from God that he should invade Iraq. Nobody said fuck about that because we are closer and closer to being a theocracy. Maybe we should realize that another religion played its role in causing the 9/11 attacks. Maybe we should stop letting religion off the fucking hook for the bullshit it causea and stop letting them get their foot further and further into the door that is our government.

On edit: And why the hell can't we multitask? Are you seriously saying that a government of our size can only focus on the war and nothing else? "Oh, don't confuse me by bringing up some other issue, I'm 100% focused on this war thing and can't even contemplate whether I need to go to the bathroom or not."

[sandnsea]

44. Pissing in the wind

The crosses are a local issue and will go through the courts. Under God will also go through the courts, and there's no national mandate to remove it from the Pledge. That's the kind of stuff they mean when they talk about a "nancy pelosi san francisco agenda'. It's a stupid waste of time.

America just rejected religious extremism. But you still live in a religious country and that isn't going to change. People will always bring the values they got from their religion to government, that was actually intended. They aren't supposed to bring their religious doctrine and I think the American people remembered that. That's why South Dakota voted down the abortion ban and elected pro-choice candidates all over the country.

People aren't just dying because of this war. They're dying because of a lack of health care. They're dying in other countries because of our foreign policy and trade policy. They're dying because of global warming.

There's more important things to worry about than stupid crosses on the side of the road.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Putting on blinders

I don't think the average voter gave one ounce of thought to voting about religion extremism. Most of them think that means the Muslims.

But why do we have to just focus on one thing. Why do my "priorities" have to be one or the other. See, I can hate Bush, want to get out of the war, want to provide universal health care (tell me THAT isn't also what they mean by Pelosi values), want to change foreign policy, AND stop the breech of church/state issues all at once. Why can't Democrats and congress?

We have to keep our eyes on mutliple balls. If we forget about the creeping theocracy, we will have addressed several of your issues just in time to see the theocracy fully in place.

[sandnsea]

47. Pay attention

Evangelicals voted Dem more than in the past. We got the Catholic vote back. Religion is shifting away from fundie extremism, a la Schiavo. People are sick of Jerry Falwell shoving his insanity down their throats. There's nothing for you to fight.

And no, universal health care is not what is meant by Pelosi values - 'free' health care is.

But you keep twirking out over wooden crosses on the roadsides.

[Goblinmonger]

48. I just don't believe

that religious whackjobs went away on Tuesday. I think the vote Dem was because of the war and because of the scandal. Why do I believe that? Because that's what they fucking told people in the exit polls. Do you have anything that says it was because they were rejecting fundamentalism?

And, again, it is not just the crosses. It is the crosses, the pledge, the motto on money, the ten commandment statues, the circumvention by cities when the "sell" land to people to put up religious statues. It is all of that together.

[sandnsea]

53. Which is nothing

All of it together is still a big nothing and has nothing to do with the religious shoving their beliefs down the rest of the countries throat.

The reason I think people are rejecting religion in government is because that's what people told me all over the country when I called for various candidates, from Kansas to New York to Virginia. They're sick of all of it, including people bringing their whack job religions into the government.

[roody]

57. I suggest that on every bill that passes through your hands,

you cross out God and write fraud. It is fun.

[Marr]

49. No, those are GOP-manufactured wedge issues.

They would like nothing more than to see the Democratic Party waste it's momentum dealing with garbage like that. I'd rather see national healthcare, an increased minimum wage, and legislation to stem (and reverse) our loss of jobs. And I'd like to see the military pulled out of these stupid occupations.

It would be good to make sure the IRS properly investigates churches that are violating campaign funding laws- and pulls their tax exempt status when appropriate, but those other issues are just net losses, IMHO. They're designed to be net losses. Meaningless iussues only meant to sow division.

[Goblinmonger]

50. No, your comment that they are GOP wedge issues is a GOP wedge issue

Get over it. I'm not some Rovian plant, for fuck's sake. Keep saying wedge issue until there is a theocracy and then what will you say.

[Marr]

52. I never said you were a "Rovian plant".

I said what I meant.

*Edited for decorum's sake*.

Those are bullshit wedge issues. Perhaps not the third, but that can be handled by the IRS. It needn't be an open political fight.

[Nye Bevan]

51. The problem is, you need all 51 Dem Senators to agree

to address any of these issues. And that includes Joe Lieberman.

And I would be amazed if you could find 5 senators, let alone 51, who want to remove God from the pledge of allegiance.

[spoony]

54. Is this really the top of your to do list?

If so, you are fully disconnected from earth.

[Goblinmonger]

59. Making sure that the first amendment is protected

is at the top of my list, yes. Isn't protection of the constitution at the top of yours?

Thanks for completely dismissing my desire that our constitution actually be upheld. How progressive of you.

[spoony]

62. Ugh, you petty axe-grinders are so narrow-minded

The Democrats weren't elected this month to delete the pledge of allegience, get God off the currency, or any other stupid, irrelevant thing like that. There is a WAR to end, blue collar workers going under, and REAL abuses of the Constitution to worry about. But I guess you'd be fine with wire taps and all of it, so long as kids aren't exposed to anything you don't personally find acceptable.

Your ridiculous agenda not only diverts from this, it endangers the long-term ability of the party to address real issues by pissing off middle America for no reason, which was so good as to just entrust us with running the country.

[Goblinmonger]

64. Let me give you a little civics lesson.

When I said I wanted to protect the constitution, that would include the illegal wire taps.

Though I do find it interesting that you would refer to attempts to make sure that the establishment clause isn't violated as "stupid, irrelevant things like that."

I say that I want the constitution to be protected and you say that the Dems need to "...address real issues." What is more real than constitutional violations. Perhaps some violations are not as important as others in your eyes. Please enlighten me--which amendments and/or rights in the constitution are you willing to do away with? What constitutional violations are you willing to put up with? As for me, I am not willing to do away with any rights nor am I willing to put up with any violations. You see things differently, I guess.

And god forbid I piss off "middle America" which I find to be a completely derogatory term people use to describe the "less advanced" non-coastal part of the country. Well, guess what smarty pants, a simple look at my profile will tell you that I fucking am middle American. I'm in Wisconsin.

[spoony]

76. Then talk to your neighbours

because the fact remains that, and you've come up with absolutely zero argument against this, there are many more actually dangerous things we need to deal with. Again, if you think the idea that the pledge violates the separation clause is an issue that a)should be dealt with now and/or b)that the people who just elected this majority want it, then you're out to lunch.

And, for the record, yeah I do consider some violations of the Constitution as more important than others, namely the violations currently shredding the entire point of America. Roadside crosses aren't even in the same galaxy as the shit we need to be dealing with right now.

[roody]

55. If you don't like the pledge, don't say it.

I don't like it. I don't say it.

[Goblinmonger]

60. And second graders

the country wide can follow that advice, because they are so keen and apt at civil disobedience and being different than their classmates.

[ecstatic]

58. With all due respect, many Americans went to the polls Tuesday

Because they are suffering financially. They have family members in Iraq. They are part of the disappearing middle class. The Democratic party should be concerned with securing the economy first, and getting us out of this nasty war.

[spoony]

63. Yes; that is the message sent in the election, and that

should be the agenda. That's why Dems were voted in. End the war. Save the workers. Health care, habeus corpus, and tons of immediate imperatives face this country. But the pledge? It's like giving a gangrenous foot a pedicure!

[Goblinmonger]

67. Again

It's not JUST the pledge. It is all of the collective violations of the first amendment that are a problem. It is easy enough to just dismiss one incident as unimportant, but it is a creepy theocracy.

But even it if is just one individual thing we are talking about, you are willing to allow some constitutional violations? You are willing to turn your head as constitutional rights are taken away. That is ok with you? What other consititutional rights are unimportant to you?

[spoony]

77. You have no idea what a theocracy is.

First of all, I don't know how old you are, but the level of religion in public is not increasing, it is decreasing. You'd have had a better argument in decades past than today. I have no idea what bizarre notion of theocracy you're using to claim this country as nearing one, but it isn't a definition that apparently sees the difference between the petty crap you're citing and ACTUAL theocracies on this planet, presently and historically.

And if you actually cared about the Constitution, you'd be more eager to patch the gaping holes than repolishing the case it's in.

[Goblinmonger]

79. I'm a really stupid 10-year-old

Please fill me in Mister.

But, sure, you've convinced me. If our country were nearing a theocracy we would have leaders that claimed to make decisions based on conversations with god; we would be exclusively giving tax dollars to faith-based groups that were overwhelmingly the same faith as our god-talking leader; we would be denying rights to groups of people because the same religion of our god-talking leader says their lifestyle is a sin; we would be at war with the same religion that our god-talking leader's religion was at war with a 1000 years ago;we would have a majority of our supreme court belonging to the same conservative religion; we would have a president that makes decisions about whom to put on the supreme court based on the decisions they will make regarding an issue of religious morality.

At least those things aren't happening.

My claim has been that we are becoming more and more of a theocracy. It has also been that we cannot just dismiss the little shit because it all just adds up until it is too late. On a theocracy scale of 1-10 we are over half way there. That is too far for me.

I grew up during the cold war. We are as divided now as we were then. Are we as bad as colonial Massachusetts? No. How close do we get to that before we stop it? How close can we get before it is unstoppable?

[grl2watch]

66. No. Not the right time.

Ending this Louis 14th-esque war is the top priority. As of November 10, 26 troops
have been killed in the month of November, most by road bombs and sniper attack.

The troops can't change the situation. We must, ASAP. This requires focus, focus, focus.
The forces which profit from war will use any opportunity to bait and switch if we let them.

I don't wish to imply that these issues are important. But lives come first.

[Goblinmonger]

68. So our great democratic legislative branch

is wholly incapable of multitasking? NOTHING other than the war is going to get done. Don't make any appointments because that distracts. Can't worry about the budget because that will distract us.

Give me a break.

[grl2watch]

71. To distract is to drag out

Everyone knows that the war is unpopular and must end. The question is, how and when.

People are already talking about 'peace with honor'. This is a Vietnam era phrase that
the hawks used to blunt the efforts of the peace activists. While
useless negotiations went on, Cambodia and Laos were bombed into the Stone Age, and war profits piled up.

When people are fomented by other issues, the militarists and contractors can work on their agendas relatively unnoticed, and play for time. This time is what costs lives.

Again, other issues do matter. But the Democrats must advance them in ways which do not
hinder the top priority.

[ncteechur]

70. NO! We did not win the election and control of both houses

as a mandate to go to the far left. It would be foolish to think so.

If we do, we will surely lose them in 2008 much more easily than we won them in 2006.

[Goblinmonger]

74. So defense of the constitution

is "far left"? Wow, did the republicans ever work their propaganda machine on us. Defense of the first amendment? You fucking hippies need to go away. Yikes.

[Vorta]

75. Hippies? Did I miss something? eom

[Vinca]

80. If we start with your chosen issues, it'll be like deja vu all over again.

Let's start with ending the war, health care for all, affordable college, energy independence, clean air, saving social security, etc. Actually, the cross signs in a state park would be a state issue, wouldn't they?

[Goblinmonger]

81. Have you heard of the 14th Amendment

The Constitution of the United State applies to the states as well as the national government. The states can provide MORE rights to its citizens but it certainly can't screw them in their own special way.

I have never said we shouldn't end the war, but I would think that a CONSTANT priority in this country would be to protect ALL constitutional rights. Maybe we need to give Congress some Ritalin so they can multitask.

[Vinca]

82. Of course I've heard of the 14th amendment.

I also know I can't afford health insurance and my family has a strong history of colon cancer.

[Goblinmonger]

83. And that sucks

I think we should address and fix that problem, too. Though according to many in this thread, you problems aren't at the top of the list either. We gotta solve this war first and then maybe, and it's a big maybe, we can get to your problems. Don't distract the new democratic congress though, or they won't be able to get anything done.

We cannot let the government take away our constitutional rights at any level. Once we allow them to do so, once we turn our backs on a violation, it gets easier and easier for them to violate even more without a fight from the people. THAT needs to be priority one because without that, our government is fucked.

[MiniMe]

84. Some issues are worth fighting for, God in the pledge is not one of them

Not only are there more important things to address, but fighting the battle of God in the pledge will simply be divisive when the dems are trying to work in a more bi-partisan manner. I agree with another poster about getting rid of the faith based initiatives, the government should not be funding religious organizations.

[ncteechur]

85. I'm all for separation of church and state but I'm not entirely against

faith-based initiatives, either. However, money for those kinds of projects should be grant-based and should be available to faith-based and secular organizations with strong oversight so that money that is granted makes its way to the people it is supposed to help.

God in the Pledge of Allegiance is a non-winner for us. We should just stay away from it.

There was a post a couple of days ago that referred to an attempt to get all US citizens 25 and younger health insurance. That is a good start.

The American people know Bush and his cronies lied about Iraq. But we cannot expend our political capital going after him because we will simply fail. There is not enough time left in his term and we don't have the numbers to get him. It is that simple. We should restore habeas corpus, figure out a way to make stop the signing statements, and restore the legal steps necessary to wiretap.

Hearings should be focused on the money and the troops. Where is it going? and are the troops getting what they need like clean drinking water and not just some minimally treated sewage. No bid contracts should be gone.

We will not be able to and we should not impeach the president as much as I would like to and think he deserves it. If we do, we will have the majority a short time only.