Can Religion coexist with the Bill of Rights?

[The Whiskey Priest]

The central premise of any religion is the concept of “an absolute truth that does not allow for contradiction.” From the discovery of an absolute and refutable truth comes the dictates for prostylization, the need to bring everyone into the truth. Over and over again we see the history of the length to which religion will stamp out any deviation from the truth stated by that religion.

This brings us to the question of the Bill of Rights that guarantees every individual certain inalienable rights. The right to voice their opinion, to think their opinion, the right to be free from being forced to accept any other person’s truth and to do so without the bayonet of the state standing ready to force them to submit to another’s truth.

Do you think the Bill of Rights and concept of Freedom can coexist with religion?

[leftofthedial]

1. I don't think religion can coexist

with the species or the future of the planet

for much longer

[BeatleBoot]

2. If and only if...

Church and State are separate.

[Discord]

7. cant happen and wont happen as long as religious

people are allowed to run for public office.

[realisticphish]

24. ???

so you think that we should restrict people from running for office based on their personal beliefs? wow.....

[Discord]

28. If they want to keep citing God in every speech

If they want to say that God ok'ed their wars
If they want to say that their religion is how they view their politics.


Then YES! Abso-f'in-lutely

[realisticphish]

31. they

what about all the religious people who DON'T do that? Are we going to create a seperate wing of the FBI that keeps track of people who go to church and restrict them from running for office? Hey, maybe we can make them all wear little yellow crosses on their clothes

[Discord]

32. sad, but a few bad apples ruined the whole bunch. nt

[realisticphish]

37. and because stalin wasnt a nice guy

we should ban atheists from running for office, right?

[Discord]

44. athiests are fine.

Defend it all you want. I am so done with religion and people defending whats going to tear this country apart.

[MollyStark]

79. You are way out numbered

Good luck with that though.

[jwirr]

50. Which personal beliefs should be used to ban

participation in government? There are thousands of kinds of personal faith beliefs including atheism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Or is it ONLY Christians who are to be banned? Isn't that the definition of discrimination?

[realisticphish]

51. precisely my point

:thumbsup:

[Discord]

57. they are the majority, and infringing on the rights of the

minority.

[jwirr]

82. Who is THEY? Many of us staunch Democrats

are Christians. Are we infringing on your rights?

[Discord]

86. your religion is.

it's not the individual. its the institution.

[jwirr]

100. Obviously you do not know

how divided the Christian religion is among it own denominations. There are thousands of branches that totally disagree with each other and the Pope may have tried to unite them but he failed. My religion is NOT the same religion that the fundies and these assholes that support this bill belong to any more than I am a German because my ancestors came from Germany. I am a Democrat because my religion taught me to care about the welfare of my fellow world citizens and the Democrat Party IMO embodies that principle far better than the repubs.

[More Than A Feeling]

27. Please explain further.

I take issue with this broad statement about the nature of religious people and their relationship with the government. I think I saw your name pop up fairly prominently in the religion flamewars, and I have no desire to restart them. I just wish to know why you say this.

[Discord]

29. here a link.

Maybe this will hopefully open your eyes to where these people want this country to go...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=117352&mesg_id=117352


No way!!!

[realisticphish]

33. huh, you're RIGHT

the views of 30 people can of COURSE be applied to millions of religious people!

[Discord]

36. You damn right!!!!

[realisticphish]

41. wow

just wow. im done.

[Discord]

43. me too.

check out the link. see what your religion is trying to do to MY government.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=117352&mesg_id=117352


theres a REAL wow for ya.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. I know about that. You haven't even mentioned

Rep. Walter Jones' Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would allow ministers to make endorsements of candidates at the pulpit and still retain their tax exemption, or the creationist assault on our schools, or any of the other craziness that the Religious Rightists are trying.

I am very familiar with the machinations of the Religious Rightists. I intern with Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Even we do not tie these shenanigans to all religious people.

You should see our database of clergy who support the Separation of Church and State. I am the one responsible for entering names in it, so I know.

[BeatleBoot]

42. They have to be separate or it won't work.

[Discord]

46. Like I posted earlier.

It was fine up until this band of wingnuts started invading my privacy. They WILL NOT STOP!

Now they have crossed the line and it is war.

Like I said earlier, its unfortunate, but many good christians will be caught in the crossfire.

[More Than A Feeling]

49. well, if that is the way you feel about it

I am not going to change your mind.

Just remember to amend the constitution to allow religion tests for elective office. That way all the ones whose religion you don't like can be weeded out.

[Discord]

52. I dont like any of them.

but I'm not going to get into that.

That Bill I linked to you... was speaking to an attourney friend, according to the wording of the Bill..

Being gay would be allowed to be considered a crime. They could come into your home and detain you for being gay. That God's Law would be able to trump Man's Laws.

Still think religion is keeping out of politics?

And this isn't being supported by just Fundamentalists.

They declared war on me, my rights, my freedoms, my constitution... I have no other choice but to fight back. I cannot rightfully pick and choose. It has to be against all religion or none. You can't just say to target the Fundamentalists, because THAT would be unconstitutional.

[More Than A Feeling]

54. I am right there with you fighting against that sort of thing.

People like me will be a shield when the Republicans accuse Democrats of being anti-religion.

Those of us who still believe and defend the Separation of Church and State are not a threat to you.

As a former atheist, I understand your anger. I remember feeling the same way towards all religion, Christianity most especially.

[Discord]

56. I applaud your open understanding that we are facing a

great evil being commited in the name of God. If I knew a way to single out the bad ones without taking out the good ones, I'd like to know. But as far as I know, there is no way to pick and choose. I cannot target one branch of religion without targeting them all. It just doesn't seem possible. Unless the Christian community is willing to be the ones to take on these folks ON RELIGIOUS GROUND! Then I have no choice but to fight them all on political ground.

The religious community needs to take charge, get right up onto the front lines, and fight off their advances or it will be left up to the very small % of non-religious peoples to fight. I know that I am fighting a very lopsided battle. I am VERY MUCH in the minority. But I can no longer just sit on the sidelines and hope that religion rights its course. If Christians find these people as offensive as the rest of us do, then its time to take responsability, take charge, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!

[More Than A Feeling]

60. A better strategy, in my opinion

Mobilize to defeat the political initiatives of the religious rightists. Those you can identify. Then you will know who is your friend and who is not, by whether or not they support you.

Attacking religion in general through political means would be making more enemies than someone in a minority, as you have said you are, can defend against.

on edit: That way, you can say things like "religious people who don't support or oppose x are wrong" and that is much more defensible than the kind of blanket statement you were making before.

[Discord]

61. The problem with that is our Dem leaders aren't

stopping them, we are a minority in Congress. I was with millions of other Americans who mobilized to try and stop the Bankruptcy Bill. See how far that got us. They are steamrolling their agenda, both religious and otherwise nearly uncontested. The only thing I have seen the Dems stand up and fight against is the Judicial Nominees. And they are working on getting around that by mobilizing the culture of lifers, thru the horridness of the Schiavo coverage, and the planned attacks on the "activist judges" and by trying to execute the nuclear option. These people will not be stopped, and until their "base" is rocked from its foundations, they will continue to pander to these religious fanatics.

This IS war. We are at war to defend ourselves and our country from this religiously motivated assault on everything we hold dear.

Its ALREADY out of hand.

If we wait much longer we will have lost all reasonable chance to fend them off.

[More Than A Feeling]

62. How many of those millions of Americans who mobilized were religious?

Probably a lot of them.

I share your frustration, but picking one segment and pointing a finger at them and saying "Its their fault" isn't right whether you are talking about religious, southerners, non-voters, DLC-ers, average americans, or whomever.

The truth is, it really isn't worth it. Much better for each of us to keep our own efforts up, regardless of what anyone else is or isn't doing.

[Discord]

63. actually, pretty much everyone is pointing the finger at

the fundamentalists. The problem is that you cant target on group or one part of a group without affecting the rest. I can't go it alone, and I can't rely on elected officials to do anything, this country's going to shit, and I'm supposted to just keep on going like theres nothing I can do but complain and be fought at every turn by friend and foe. I don't know if you yourself are religious, but its very difficult for religious people to understand what its like for non-religious people in this country and what its like, and where we see this country headed. I've always been the front line on being a religion watchdog. I have nothing against the religious, just the institutions, and its greedy, power hungry, exclusionist oppressors.

Its not the individual... its the religious corporation. Like its not the workers at a disreputable company, its the CEO's and lobbyists that are the source of the corruption and where the blame lies.

Ya know....?

[More Than A Feeling]

64. I have been both, atheist and religious

Which is why I will always be the ally of you and people like you, and nothing you or anyone else could say against religion would make me change.

I do know what you speak of. If this were an easy problem, it would have been solved long ago. Its probably as bad as it has ever been under Bush (at least the Salem Witch Trials were only one town.)

Its a bad time for everyone, on all fronts. Its a time to come together, and huddle by the fire in the night as the howls of wolves come ever closer, and try to survive as best we can until dawn.

The only comfort I can offer is that this too, shall pass.

[Discord]

76. I would like to hope so, but I'm not much of an optimist.

Historically the growth of religion in a country is a constant upward trend. Has some ebbs and flows, but always creeping ever forward.

Most nations that have succumbed to theocracy have only been changed through bloody revolutions and civic upheaval. I don't want this country to come to that, but its getting closer.

[MollyStark]

80. You've already lost

The reason is that you have determined that more than half your allies are part of the problem.
I'm not with you, not after what you said about Christians caught in the crossfire. You lose because you don't realize who is on your side.

[Discord]

85. oh well...

your loss not mine.

[Warpy]

53. Only if we reassert we're a nation of LAWS

and that law trumps religious OPINION.

Church and state coexisted for 200 years as long as everybody knew where the line of separation lay and we had a Supreme Court that was willing to reaffirm it from time to time and parties who would respect the decisions.

I think people are finally waking up to what the face of religious fascism looks like, and they're none too pleased. I sincerely hope the pendulum of public opinion starts the laborious return towards a purely secular government and keeping religion in the church, home, and heart.

[Discord]

99. So then... whats this?

Read and learn... its going to be too late alot sooner than you think...


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=104&ItemID=7569

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Not every religion demands proselytization or has as its central

premise that it is the only true path to "salvation".

[Discord]

5. thats only one of many problems with religion and its

impact on social programs.

[madrchsod]

10. it`s impact on social programs?

that makes no sense at all.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. True. I got distracted by that assumption being made in the OP.

I think that Church and State must be separate for the protection of both. They can co-exist, but must remain separate and distinct.

[Discord]

26. I used to think so. During a time when people could be

responsible with religion. Those days are gone.

I am fed up with religion and all the bullshit, hatred, elitism, exclusion, holier than thou, in your face, corrupt fanatical asswipes who want to strip me of my rights and freedoms while they use our constitution as toliet paper.

No offense to the good people out there who happen to be christian.

But Religion is asking for a big ol smack down. Its unfortunate that to get to the bad parts of religion, many good christians will be caught in the crossfire, but I am convinced that religion is no longer a "good" force in this country. It does more harm than good.

Heres a prime example...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=117352&mesg_id=117352

edited to add link.

[jwirr]

55. I don't think any of us will

have to do any slapping down. This type of right wing involvement in government has its own self-destruction written internally. When their policies begin to fail the churches will empty of their sheeple. When that happens the preachers will be without money to function and they will lose their political power.

Only then will they see what they have been doing. That time is not far off - most idiot right wingers also need social security to survive. As bushie keeps threatening their livelihood they will realize that their preachers have talked them into working against their own needs even while the preachers are being supported liberally by the sheeples church donations!!!

Christianity will not die BUT the wrong headed leaders who are leading the people away from true faith into hatred and anger will be defeated.

[Discord]

58. I like your optimism... but I do not share it.

It very well may be too late before that happens.

[Discord]

4. No. eom

[madrchsod]

6. why not?

i see no contradiction . both can co-exist in a free and just society.

[Dez]

8. hasn't existed so far.. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

11. Good point.

Lousy track record so far.

[H2O Man]

9. Your definition of religion

is immature, leaving the central question meaningless.

[The Whiskey Priest]

17. Please enlighten

So that we may walk in the path of your truth.

[H2O Man]

39. Not my job.

Do it yourself.

[madrchsod]

20. yes

i knew something was wrong with this arguement but i didn`t know what it was. plus it`s to dam nice out to go into any discussion of religion...

[Zynx]

71. Exactly what I said.

[Robbien]

12. The GOP has a bill going set up to have God overrule the courts

See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x117352

In the worshipful words of the Conservative Caucus, this historic legislation will "RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION!", mainly by barring ANY federal court or judge from ever again reviewing "any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

In other words, the bill ensures that God's divine word (and our infallible leaders' interpretation thereof) will hereafter trump all our pathetic democratic notions about freedom, law and rights -- and our courts can't say a thing. This, of course, will take "In God We Trust" to an entirely new level, because soon He (and His personally anointed political elite) will be all the legal recourse we have left.

This is not a joke, a test, or a fit of libertarian paranoia. The CRA already has 28 sponsors in the House and Senate, and a March 20 call to lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby's office assures us that "we have the votes for passage." This is a highly credible projection as Bill Moyers observes in his 3/24/05 "Welcome to Doomsday" piece in the New York Review of Books: "The corporate, political, and religious right's hammerlock... extends to the US Congress. Nearly half of its members before the election-231 legislators in all (more since the election)-are backed by the religious right... Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the most influential Christian Right advocacy groups."

[adwon]

81. ?

You do realize that language, in itself, is self-defeating. It's telling the federal courts how they must judge the reviewability of law. Look up Ex Parte McCardle.

[noamnety]

13. In theory, yes

In theory, the Bill of Rights would apply to everyone in the country. Those who are religious would personally follow their religious laws as well.

In reality, no, because the christian churches have consciously banded together to deliberately and explicitly elect political leaders who will force their beliefs on the rest of us.

[johnaries]

14. They've done ok for over 200 years. A few bumps in the road,

but overall pretty well - up until recently.

[Zynx]

15. Of course. This does not even merit discussion. n/t

[The Whiskey Priest]

21. Another true believer.....

Please cast your pearls before the swine...so we also can see the true light.

[Zynx]

66. Why can't religion and the Bill of Rights coexist?

I haven't heard any logical reason thus far.

[Discord]

87. look around you. its already happening

and its going to keep getting worse.

[samhill226]

74. Sarcasm will get you nowhere unless you can state your position clearly.

And thus far I've not seen one good argument on why Religion is incompatible with the Bill or Rights or the concept of freedom.

If incoherent snapbacks are all you can dredge up in defense of your position it might behoove you to reexamine your arguments.

[Discord]

89. Denial.... people need to wake up and soon.

Theoreticaly, it CAN. But at this time in the country, it is NOT.
The invasion of religion into politics has already started.

When they came for my neighbor. I didn't say anything, because they didn't come for me.
When they came for my friend. I didn't say anything, because they didn't come for me.
When they came for me. It was already too late.

[The Whiskey Priest]

101. My argument is this:

All religions are based on some revealed universal truth.
All adherents to that revealed universal truth feel compelled to share with others.
Religious truths contain large amounts of faith.
Faith is antipathy to reason.
With some reason prevails and faith fails
When faith fails religion is rejected by some
A revealed universal truth cannot be declared null, to do so places you outside the truth.
So there are those who stand within the universal truth and those that stand outside the universal truth.
Since everyone should be within the truth, it is the responsibility of the adherents to that truth to do all within their power to bring those in that are outside the truth.
If those outside the truth prove resistant to arguments for the truth and it is important that all be within the truth and the adherents have access to the police powers of the state, then it is perfectly and historically reasonable to expect they will appeal to that police power.

History is replete with evidence that this argument is sound. Only if you reject historical facts can you say that at some point all religions have not used the sword and the stake to gather converts into the fold.

[H2O Man]

92. That's your first accurate statement.

It would indeed be "pearls before the swine."

[Runcible Spoon]

30. ohhh OK. thanks for clearing that up.

:eyes: this "thinking" stuff really does get in the way sometimes doesn't it.

[Zynx]

68. Discussing this matter is a waste of thinking. It was a badly thought

out thesis to begin with and thus can be described as a meritless argument. That's my opinion.

[Discord]

90. go away. your attemp to stifle the debate of a very critical

point is not going to work.

[Discord]

40. maybe you should go sign up in FR then.

They don't like to discuss MAJOR issues there.

[Zynx]

69. This is a pathetic attempt at a debate.

The idea that religion and the Bill of Rights cannot coexist assumes that every religious person is some kind of bigot who cannot accept people of other faiths or non-faiths, which is an invalid assumption therefore the argument is invalid thus the debate is pointless and does not need discussion.

[Discord]

91. says YOU. Grow up. the REST of us see a problem.

We may not all agree on how to deal with it, but the rest of us know that there is big trouble brewing in government. The power and greed of religion has already crossed the line.

I have stated above, which obviously you have not bothered to read, it that its not the individuals, its the institution.

Get a grip. wake up. or be gone.

[mmonk]

18. yes

It's called separation of church and state. The erosion of this principle is getting us in trouble.

[More Than A Feeling]

19. Sure, it can. Mainline Baptists have Separation of Church and State

as part of their central doctrine and history. It was Baptists Jefferson was writing to when he outlined his concept of the wall between government and religion.

Given the absolute nature of your original premise, this single example should be enough to refute it.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. Of course it can

The principle in the Bill of Rights is that church and state are separate. It is not the business of the state to save souls; it is not the business of the church to use the state's police power to impose its will on those who do not accept its tenants.

It shouldn't bother anybody that a religious group would attempt to use its influence with legislators to pass laws to their liking. It shouldn't bother them that a number of us will oppose them and use our influence to prevent that legislation from passing.

If the fathers of a particular church want to excommunicate a woman for getting an abortion, they are within their rights. If the state wants to jail a woman for getting an abortion, that's where we as citizens should draw the line.

The lesson that needs to be learned is that it would be possible for a parishioner at that church to support the church's sanction against the woman in this case and still oppose making abortion a crime against the state. There is no contradiction in that.

[realisticphish]

23. of course it can

while the premise that a religion (or non-religion) is the absolute truth is central, there is nothing about "religion" in general that demands forcing views onto others. Advocating it, ok fine, but hell, advocation is a central tenet of democracy. If you don't want any prostylization, than I guess political campaigns are out the window, right?

the bottom line is, oppression is oppression, with or without religion. The Romans oppressed Christians for their beliefs, the Christians oppressed muslims and jews, atheistic Stalinist Russia oppressed those with religion, and the fundmentalist American gov't now wants to oppress...well, pretty much anyone who isn't an extreme fundamental biblical literalist. The key is separation of church and state. I, as a Christian, have a great deal of respect for other beliefs, be they Jewish, atheist, Muslim, or Pagan. I have no desire to force my belief onto others through the government, and in fact diametrically oppose it all the time, in the ACLU. Religion or absence of religion is a personal thing; in that respect, it is totally compatable with all the tenets of our Constitution.

On the government level, of course, state religion leads to oppression. I certainly oppose that, but religion in general can definitely coexist with democratic rights.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. The problem is with the fundamentalists who want a theocracy

Most mainline clergy scrupulously avoid endorsing political candidates and the like. They'll tell their flocks to go out and vote their consciences, but not HOW to vote.

[Discord]

59. the hard part is that there is no legal or constitutional way

to target "just one form" of religion without affecting them all.

So people who want to stop this insanity has to fight against 90% of the USA to get things done as long as even the good people continue to defend their own little branches of religion.

Maybe your church is good, but I can't shut the bad one down thats across town without shutting the good ones down too.

This is my dilema.

How to stop the bad guys, without hurting the good people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. Well, for one thing, enforce the existing laws

against churches endorsing specific political parties or candidates, something that the mainstream churches rarely violate but the fundamentalists violate all the time.

[Discord]

93. we don't have power to enforce. Look at DeLay.

The man is an unethical moral criminal. STILL in power.
The Chimp, a war criminal, NOT INVESTIGATED!
Rumsfeld, war criminal, walking around still in power of the US military... NOT INVESTIGATED!

And you can suggest enforcing the laws as a solution???

[BeatleBoot]

34. Here's The First 10 words of the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,


Here is the entire First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[ClintonTyree]

35. If man can peacefully coexist with the fish.............

yes, I think it's possible.

[BeatleBoot]

48. Lol!

Thanks for adding some levity!

It's getting weird around here lately, no?

[peacetalksforall]

45. Church and State must co-exist. They are the ones changing the

Constituion to Church and Church instead of Church and State - for their members and we heathens and screw everyone who doesn't like it.

We have to split our country amiably, like good people could. We must keep our Constitution and improve on it. They can create their own for a christian (and limited jewish) nation. Limited, by their interpretations of things Judaic and how it figures for them.

We need to speak about this is drastic terms because what they are doing to us is drastic. If we don't speak drastically, there won't be a chance for our country, because too many people are sleeping. It looks like they won't wake up before the vote.

We must separate. We must start doing it. We need to split the country. It's that or a church takeover and not the church of choice.

[Discord]

47. Here here!!!

After reading the new bill they introduced... I have had it with religion.

It is war!

[WillowTree]

67. Considering the fact...

....that the very first thing that the framers chose to protect in the Bill of Rights was religion, I find the question very strange.

[Zynx]

70. That was exactly my thought and I got blasted for it.

Apparently if you think religion is mildly acceptable on this forum you get torn limb from limb.

[WillowTree]

75. I agree.

And, sadly, that kind of attitude creates an image problem for Liberals.

That being said, however, my faith is a part of who and what I am and the criticizm or ridicule of others can't touch it. There's a certain comfort in that.

[Discord]

96. Thats good. and no one should.

I've stated many times that its not the individuals that is the problem, its the institution of religion.

[Discord]

95. It WAS acceptable. I no longer is. Religion is not behaving

well as the leaders and representitives are the same power hungry, greedy and corrupt people who continue to push this country towards a Theocracy.

[Discord]

94. yeah, well 200 years ago, it wasn't a problem.

If you WANT to live in a Theocracy. Go move to the Middle East. Then you can see what living under a Theocracy is like.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

72. The Bill of Rights really have no bearing on my life.

They provide me with protection, but without said protection I'd continue living my life as I see fit. I may be persecuted, fined, etc., but laws won't stop me (ask the millions of Russian Orthodox and Catholic who lived during communist Russia; ask the Jews throughout the history of Christian Europe, ask the native Americans when the Puritans came . . . etc.).

Yes, I live a comfortable life because of the Bill of Rights, but sometimes comfort is an obstacle to the more meaningful things in this world. Living a life of pure comfort makes me buy my food from a local farmer, makes me not shop at Wal-Mart, makes me not subscribe to cable, etc. I'm not purer or more righteous than the next sap. I have a simple faith that tells me that suffering in the world names my occupation--to do what I can, in whatever humble ways, to live a humble life.

And to subscribe to Netflix.

I mean, really, how can you take away my right to prayer? Do you really think I can't hide an icon? And if you find it, do you really think that I and my family aren't ready to die for it? Or, if you're an oppressive regime enforcing the worshiping of icons, do you really think you can stop me from spreading literature accusing you of idolatry? Bill of rights? I need no Bill to give me my rights.

The face of the other individual is both my temptation to murder and my commandment, "Thou shall not murder."

Ouch!!!! I just fell off my soapbox.

[Discord]

97. So you would just simply sit by and watch as they turn this

country into a Theocracy and destroy the lives of millions of americans, cause you just cant bear to stand up and fight against it BEFORE it was too late.

Sad.

No wonder the Democrats are so unorganized, unmotivated, apathetic and disenfranchised.

[samhill226]

73. What do you mean?

Of course they can!

The bill of rights was written as an attempt to A)Limit the power of the federal government, and B)Secure individual liberties from predation by said government.

This is perfectly compatible with three of the four major monotheistic Faiths that exist in the world today. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all related to each other, and each of them make provisions within their laws for the preservation of property. And since the bill of rights does not go against any of the laws of these three Faiths (that I am aware of anyway) it goes without saying that they are well matched.

All of the great strides towards the protection of individual liberty, and property that have been made in this country have been made by men of faith. It seems ridiculous to ask such a question in light of our history.

[Discord]

98. history is just that. History.

this administration has repeatedly ignored the lessons of history, and you trust them to have learned this one? I think not.

Just because our system has lasted this long doesn't mean it can't be undone.

I pity this country and the many blind people in it who cannot see the trampling of our rights and freedoms right under your nose and being done in the name of YOUR God.

[Fescue4u]

77. Considering that the B.O.R. was born of religion

of course.

And it has co-existed for 200+ years.

Unless of course you think that religion is Bush invention.

The folks who wrote the Bill of Rights felt that these rights were rights given to us by our creator.

[MollyStark]

78. Over 200 years of american history say yes... n/t

[The Whiskey Priest]

83. During that 200 years there was never a time

that religion trampled indiviudal rights?

[Yupster]

84. It has for 200 years

Why would it be different now?

[Bridget Burke]

88. Of course.

Some adherents of religion have problems with the Bill of Rights. Too bad for them.

Your view of religion is a bit narrow.