Finally~~Follow

Please god just delete this topic before you cause a huge flame war. This is simply one of the things you don't bring up (especially on a gaming forum).

Too many people have too strong of emotions into this subject. This is like a taboo of open dicussion. >.<

Thanks,

(I'm not trying to be a ***....but these never turn out good)

Please god just delete this topic before you cause a huge flame war. This is simply one of the things you don't bring up (especially on a gaming forum).

Too many people have too strong of emotions into this subject. This is like a taboo of open dicussion. >.<

Thanks,

(I'm not trying to be a ***....but these never turn out good)

I disagree, these sort of discussions are actually meaningful. Something to actually make one think. Instead of the normal, ZOMG HE STOLE MY NM posts that we usually write about.

The Wall of Separation

Often when someone speaks of the constitutionally guaranteed right to religion, they also speak of "the wall of separation between church and state," or simply as "the separation of church and state." What does this mean, and what is the origin of this phrase?

It did not take long after the passage and ratification of the 1st Amendment for people to start interpreting it to simply mean that that federal government had no business getting mixed into religion. Of course, there is more to it than that, especially when it comes to the individual right part of the amendment. But the notion that the government should not become enmeshed in religion is an important concept, too. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government. The Wall, however, is a nice shorthand metaphor for non-establishment.

One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, is directly responsible for giving us this phrase. In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, then-President Jefferson used the phrase - it was probably not the first time, but it is the most memorable one. He said:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Jefferson did not have a hand in the authoring of the Constitution, nor of the 1st Amendment, but he was an outspoken proponent of the separation of church and state, going back to his time as a legislator in Virginia. In 1785, Jefferson drafted a bill that was designed to squash an attempt by some to provide taxes for the purpose of furthering religious education. He wrote that such support for religion was counter to a natural right of man:

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Jefferson's act was passed, though not without some difficulty, in Virginia. Eyler Robert Coates wrote that the act was copied in the acts or constitutions of several states, either in words or in concepts. Jefferson himself was in France by the time word of the act reached Europe, and he wrote back to America that his act was well-thought of and admired.

Jefferson's letter specifically pointed out by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v US (98 US 145 [1878]).

I really hope that when Falc and I get married, we either decide to leave this country, or I am medically unable to have children because I sure as hell do not want to raise my children in this male-dominated disaster.

1) if you are to ban abortion, what would you do for those women who know they cant take care of the children they are to give birth to. Adoption is not a answer, as most children never do infact get adopted. Will you provide federal funds to those who cant provide for themselves?

2) Will you pay the medical, finacial bills of those who get gravily ill or die because of a problem that complicated pregnancy and could have been prevented with a abortion.

3) Will you provide for ways to prevent pregnancy. Right now the Republican governement refuses to admint abstinence programs do not work, here in the US nor abroad. Schools who teach alternate meanns of contraspetive lose all government health funding for it. Will you allow the laws to be changed so that you can try to better prevent pregnancy?

4) Will you provide support to women and men who because of their shattered lives live in a enviroment that makes having a child seem like a lot of sense if only to fufill a need they wouldnt have had. Mind you this plays into number 1 since statistically most people who have children they cant support have them because of being given away by their parents unwanted

Something to actually make one think. Instead of the normal, ZOMG HE STOLE MY NM posts that we usually write about.

Too many people have too strong of emotions into this subject.

Etain, the thing is you're not dealing with just your body. That is a living, breathing creature that is being harmed when abortions are taking place.

I think most of the hatred toward abortion really stems from the general lack of knowlage men have of the actual process of pregnancy and birth. If men actually knew how much missinformation is out there about "when life begins" it wouldnt be nearly the issue it is today.

I'm sorry Etain, but I don't think you can use that as a good example. The reason: A murderer, that raped your sister or brother then killed him to cover up his crime is not the same as an innocent baby that has done no wrong.