this paragraph made no sense. Religion is not alive, its adherents are. The US government isnt alive, its adherents are. The people who make it run and work are the ones who commit crimes or miricles. Not the idea itself. What youre preaching is the very communist disposal of free will in allowing people to have set beliefs.

Buddhism has no real meaning, and no basis for faith, which is why most buddhists are "converts" or also practice alternate religious beliefs. Case in point China and India. Most of the buddhists there also believe in more traditional religiouis things to explain the origins of life and where we go when we die.

haha... once again you pass over the relevant posts where I proved that THAT is exactly what they meant and Modern Courts uphold it as the "Establishment Clause". So, no, I am not assuming anything.

So. I take it you are a Christian??? With your homophobic tendencies an drhetoric one would assume so but I would rather ask

Hhahaha... nice misdirection. "Call him a commie and get off the hook"

Ideas come alive if they are popular.

why consider a construct for humanity at all?

it's impossible...the ideal of buddhist based beliefs is harm no living thing, it's a good policy, but is it really in our base nature, can a human actually live a life, harming nothing?

some can ascend those aspects of humanity becoming, "buddahs" but look at what they gave up to get there, i like being human, no matter how badly it can suck.

so why not let humanity be humanity?

No matter who or what created it, how or why we think and do what we do, creating our own "works of art". in all the myths, humanity always damns itself through those creations...

so, unfortunately there does need to be some general established principles, ideally people would just know, but until then we will always need gods, politicians and society dictating how to live a good life, based on what should be basic rules. the problem with rules is that in the wrong hands they can be destructive...and why religion based around a god may initially seem to be responsible for the devastation, needing a god is like needing a drug, even science has discovered that we're hard wired for it.

I was raised Catholic, as was my gay brother. I hate gays because they undermine the morality of the country and make it a shittier place to live. The same reason I hate gang members.

As for my religion though I am not religious and I am not even sure I believe in any god. Lets say I am agnostic leaning towards athiest. but unwilling to take the final plunge because I cant prove there is no god, and nothing doesnt make something so I am confused.

I still respect religion though, because it fixes more shit than it breaks. forced athiest belief though on the other hand. well thats only the number 1 killer in the 20th century.

Ideas are just streams of infomation. With no life of thier own. They have no meaning or relevance until a living organism decides to act upon them, even then its not the ideas fault, its the organisms fault.

And I didnt call you a commie, I said you professed a communist ideal.

Which is why Buddhism is just as bullshit as every other religion. Buddhists fought wars and murdered people too, but for some reason when a Christian or Muslim does it Christianity or Islam = evil religions whihc force people to kill.

When a buddhist does it though, its NOT the religion, its the person!

evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life only with orgin of species

exactly our creations exist and thrive because they save us

not a bad idea i could pray for it to produce oxygen and it would, its something i could believe in.

everything is hard wired to the same end, we are just alot better at it then most, not the best though but pretty damn good

i didnt see where you proved thats exactly what they meant dyshade, also a modern interpretation of what they meant by our courts does not represent what they meant at all. Its A. Modern and B. an Interpretation. Now if the courts some how reserected all of them and asked them what they ment that would be a diffrent story. What they meant was the goverment will not support or hinder any religion notr will it create a national religion

The Supreme Courts interpretation regards the intent behind the statement.

so basicaly they are infrering the meaning from a sentence that is somewhat ambigous.

the constitution was ratified in 1789. In that orignal document no mention was made to religion. They did however state that congress shall grant no titles, ie make someone a duke ect. Two years later the bill of rights was added and and ratfied the first one lumps religion in with freedom of press ect. That bill of rights was ratfied by Congress not the founding fathers although Iam sure many were members.

One thing that makes this country great is that the documents that governor our society are always evolving which makes the goverment able to change to meet the wants of society.

At the time it was written it was far from ambiguous. Nor is it really ambiguous now unless you just want to ignore the several statements the writers of the documents made about thier intent behind the statement. As I have shown thier intent was very clear; they just had to make the statement a little friendlier. As they did. The intent of seperation was ALWAYS there.
The people who wrote the Constitution never wanted our government to traffic with religious organizations because of the travesties they witnessed in Europe.

They based our Constitution on humanistic morals rather than divine morals. Billy and his misdirection aside it is easy for anyone to see the intent that our forefathers had when writing each portion of the document.