navid azimi

losing faith in humanity, one person at a time

1. Mike 11.07.04 / 2pm

   That would be the exact opposite of separation of church and state. Everyone should be allowed to vote and participate without concidering their religion or in this case their “religiosity”.

   But fuckin shit, these people are stupid. Believe in god all you want, but the stupid book was written thousands of years ago. Don’t impose your stupid morals on us.
   For example Commandment #4 – But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.

   Work on Sunday and you will go to hell.
2. Brad 11.07.04 / 3pm

   Eh, I’m going to hell anyways. Mine as well make it worth it.;)
3. Arshia 11.07.04 / 4pm

   Amen. I went to work today. Preach on Brad!
4. Navid Azimi 11.07.04 / 4pm

   I still disagree, Mike, because the separation of church and state is not the same as the un-involvement of church in state, and vice-versa, but rather, the separation of ideals between the two. Therefore, its not an issue of their “religiousity” but rather an implication of their ideals. It is apparent that the majority’s desire to up hold their moral beliefs has outweighed the logical, bipartisan political system.

   I personally find it odd that for a country which preaches on the fundemental separation of church and state has a leader elected primarily on the basis of religious morals and values. The irony makes me want to kill myself.
5. Mike 11.09.04 / 1pm

   This is part of Democracy. If there are a lot of people who are religious then being religious will get thme to like you and get you elected.
   The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. No one has broken that.
   If you make a law that says “if you go to church then you cannot vote” you are prohibiting the free excercise of religion, breaking the first amendment.

   Your suggestion makes no sense at all. I understand you don’t expect this to be enforced and just saying it cause you think it would be nice, but it really wouldn’t. People like candidates for many reasons and if one of them is religion, this has nothing to do with the first amendment.

   And all the anti gay laws for example are not made based on religion, but based on the definition of marriage. Yes, basically a good lawyer looked at the text and read it word by word and saw that it says a “man and a woman”. The law is not saying “gays can’t marry because it’s against religion” but “gays can’t marry because marriage is defined by the law to be between a man and a woman”. The idea behind it is religious but the law itself isn’t, so there is a separation between church and state.
6. Mike 11.09.04 / 1pm

   Oh sorry, I shouldn’t have posted the 1st amendment. The real thing that’s against your idea is the bill of rights:
   ”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship”. I don’t think I need to explain this.
7. Arshia 11.09.04 / 5pm

   Dear Mike,
   Please note that the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Thank you.
8. Brad 11.10.04 / 5am

   Dear Mike and Navid,
   Please note that the US is based around religion. Listen to one of George Bush’s speeches and note how many times the word “God” comes up. The only reason, in my mind, that US is not religious is because they think themselves to be God and act accordingly by punishing the “sinners” of the world. Arigato. (Thank you)
9. Arshia 11.10.04 / 1pm

   Hey Brad, are you mocking me?
10. Brad 11.10.04 / 8pm

    No, I just stole your style because it was pimpin.
11. Ava 12.20.05 / 6pm

    dude, so wish I read this awhile ago. I am standing above my computer clapping….

Powered by Hemingway flavored Wordpress.

Entries RSS Comments RSS