The U.S. Constitution

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:06 PM'] Perhaps. (Or perhaps not.) But what you could be assured of was a severe beating or execution. Social stigma? Is wasn't necessary. [/quote]
Actually that's not the case at all. Depending on where you lived it became infamous to be certain but not always frowned upon unless you wanted to use the other person's "tastes" to your advantage. I point to the propensity for pederasty in the Byzantine empire as an example. While decried as a sin, it was largely tolerated.

Looking at medieval Islam we see lots of this sort of behavior as well despite the fact that Islam is strongly against homosexuality. In fact, as near as I can tell, rhetoric aside, homosexual tendencies were largely tolerated in medieval society.

[KizlarAgha]

Socrates - if we legislate morals we must decide on whose morals to legislate. I personally believe in an objective morality and an objective right and wrong, but many people don't. Therefore, in the absence of a unified code of morals, legal arguments most take on a logical form. (Not to say that religion is inherently illogical).

The fact is that state churches have been struck down. Hell, the ACLU is making cities take crosses out of their seals. So far, the US government has found the arguments for a separation of Church and state to be pretty solid. As such, I foresee that the divide will continue.

I don't really see a point in continuing this any further. You have seen my point, I have made my reasoning clear as day. You can agree with it, or disagree with it as you will. However, making claims that I'm intellectually dishonest, twisting words, or making things up are insulting and patently ridiculous.

The constitution is twisted by every side as each person has a unique reading of the document. This sounds very familiar - Christianity and the bible anyone? This is why we have a pope. However, there is no pope giving out the dogma of the constitution so each interpretation is as valid as the next. As such, I'm not going to waste my time here any longer.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:21 PM'] Socrates - if we legislate morals we must decide on whose morals to legislate. I personally believe in an objective morality and an objective right and wrong, but many people don't. Therefore, in the absence of a unified code of morals, legal arguments most take on a logical form. (Not to say that religion is inherently illogical).

The fact is that state churches have been struck down. Hell, the ACLU is making cities take crosses out of their seals. So far, the US government has found the arguments for a separation of Church and state to be pretty solid. As such, I foresee that the divide will continue.

I don't really see a point in continuing this any further. You have seen my point, I have made my reasoning clear as day. You can agree with it, or disagree with it as you will. However, making claims that I'm intellectually dishonest, twisting words, or making things up are insulting and patently ridiculous.

The constitution is twisted by every side as each person has a unique reading of the document. This sounds very familiar - Christianity and the bible anyone? This is why we have a pope. However, there is no pope giving out the dogma of the constitution so each interpretation is as valid as the next. As such, I'm not going to waste my time here any longer. [/quote]
I actuallyagree with most of what you say here.

However, I must strongly disagree that the Constitution logically calls for "gay rights" or "gay marriage." This is not at all "clear as day." I have made my case.

The radical militant secularism of the ACLU and other "liberals" was not oringally found in the Constitution, and does not follow the letter nor the logic of the law, but declares the law to mean whatever they want it to mean.

I am not a postmodernist, and beleive the words written in the Constitution have actual meaning, and that the actual intent of the framers is indeed important in interpreting these laws. I do not beleive in taking the words of the law, and drawing from them something clearly never originally intended. As you've pointed out, people can do this with any written words, even the Bible.

What I find most disturbing is the attitude that we should just accept the twisted interpretations of the ALCU, etc., and give up the fight. If all good people take this attitude, then defeat is inevitable.

[MichaelFilo]

I think it should be noted the difference between a liberal and a conservative isn't neccessarily the role of the federal government, we can all agree what that is. However, there is good point here: the Constitution of the United States of America is quite open ended and holds no real restrictions. When we refer to it as a "living document" as it is known, we know that it can change to meet the times, and that is the point. Simply, the Constitution does not bar or promote sodomy, if taken for the words contained. However, there is something that has been referenced to and could be a bit more elaborated upon.

That something is the fact that a living document such as the Constitution must be interpreted in a way which is appropriate to the time and situation when each law was made. It would be a erronous to interpret the Constitution in any other manner (which is where the liberal and conservative part ways). We must understand what leaving certain laws to federal governments could possibly have to do with homosexuality. So, I'll basically try and rehash most of this thread right here. During the time of the Constituion anti-sodomy laws were effective everywhere the Constitution was. They were active before it was written as well. It woul dhave been pointless to add thta clause in there, everyone knew that sodomy was wrong, no one had to throw that in there, and besides the Constitution is a list of positives, not negatives, so why throw sodomy (a virtual non-issue at the time) in the Constitution? I think thats the point that should be made, there was no approval for sodomy (by extention also homosexuality) and the general understanding was that everyone agreed, so as to not clutter the Constitution with excess material, it was left out (also because it would have been rather weird to have that as part of the Constitution of the United States of America which was much more loosly connected than it is today).

So, I think thats the point. If you are going to pull a liberal judge translation, thats ok, you automatically miss the point of the Constitution by ignoring it's "living" nature. If you pull a conservative, you'll notice it's very clear that the founding fathers were not in support of sodomy or sodomizers. Neither was anyone else. The Constitution of the United States of America was against sodomy (in an unspoken consensus) and didn't feel the need to clarify that issue, because again, it was not an issue.

God bless,
Mikey

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Looking at medieval Islam we see lots of this sort of behavior as well despite the fact that Islam is strongly against homosexuality. In fact, as near as I can tell, rhetoric aside, homosexual tendencies were largely tolerated in medieval society. [/quote]
Not in the West-- Sodomy was determined by Council to be grounds for immediate excommunication of the Layman and the defrocking of Clergy. That isn't " tolerated" More than that these rules where largely enforced even perhaps sometimes unjustly( remember the Templars).

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:48 PM'] I actuallyagree with most of what you say here.

However, I must strongly disagree that the Constitution logically calls for "gay rights" or "gay marriage." This is not at all "clear as day." I have made my case.

The radical militant secularism of the ACLU and other "liberals" was not oringally found in the Constitution, and does not follow the letter nor the logic of the law, but declares the law to mean whatever they want it to mean.

I am not a postmodernist, and beleive the words written in the Constitution have actual meaning, and that the actual intent of the framers is indeed important in interpreting these laws. I do not beleive in taking the words of the law, and drawing from them something clearly never originally intended. As you've pointed out, people can do this with any written words, even the Bible.

What I find most disturbing is the attitude that we should just accept the twisted interpretations of the ALCU, etc., and give up the fight. If all good people take this attitude, then defeat is inevitable. [/quote]
I just think that sex is as close to a civil right as we get. I think from a secular post-modernist standpoint, that makes gay sex a foregone conclusion.

I feel that the religious can best express themselves by voting their consciences. But let's all remember something - Roe v. Wade is a court decision and was never brought to a vote. It still hasn't been in 30 years.

I think that arguing for sex as a civil right is far easier and less of an uphill battle than arguing the reverse. Therefore, the legality of gay sex seems to be the much clearer argument.

However, I didn't take into account the possibility that perhaps the reason outlawing heterosexual sex isn't unconstitutional is that nobody would ever think of it nor would the law ever be passed. Taken from this viewpoint, the argument for gay sex and gay marriage holds a great deal less water. But, my area of emphasis is medieval history, not constitutional law. As such, I'll allow the lawyers to deal with this.

An interesting side development - I've never voted because I don't like the US government as an institution. However, I suppose voting is the only way to make the US a better institution.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Nicole8223' date='Jun 2 2005, 07:24 PM']interesting...this country was built on the foundation of the 10 commandments...no coincidence there. 
[/quote]
Wrong. Prove it.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:48 PM']I actuallyagree with most of what you say here.

However, I must strongly disagree that the Constitution logically calls for "gay rights" or "gay marriage."  This is not at all "clear as day." I have made my case.

The radical militant secularism of the ACLU and other "liberals" was not oringally found in the Constitution, and does not follow the letter nor the logic of the law, but declares the law to mean whatever they want it to mean.

I am not a postmodernist, and beleive the words written in the Constitution have actual meaning, and that the actual intent of the framers is indeed important in interpreting these laws.  I do not beleive in taking the words of the law, and drawing from them something clearly never originally intended.  As you've pointed out, people can do this with any written words, even the Bible.

What I find most disturbing is the attitude that we should just accept the twisted interpretations of the ALCU, etc., and give up the fight.  If all good people take this attitude, then defeat is inevitable.[/quote]
Socrates, your seething hatred for gays does not give you authority to twist the constitution to meet your bigotted views. You cry out that liberals have twisted the consititution because it does not meet your own personal views. There are those who say the same things about slavery. The framers most definitely did not recognize slaves to be equal, and it took many long years to repeal these evils. America stands for equality. If homosexuals could not be allowed to participate in a relationship, sexual intercourse, effectively destroying the idea of equality. Framers didn't allow women to vote, are we to blame those darn liberals again for this? Desegregation, darn the ACLU. You can cry liberal all day. Ill counter that with bigot.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Cam42]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 09:05 AM']Wrong. Prove it.[/quote]
Of all the men who might be Founding Fathers, the only two who really count are Jefferson and Madison, as the United States is founded almost entirely on the writings and beliefs of these two men. Jefferson’s Declaration is held aloft as our national ideal, and certain key phrases are quoted from it as if reciting a prayer (e.g., “all men are created equal”). Madison’s Constitution is equally revered and studied now as the ideal foundation for human law.

The Founders studied history, lived during the historical era we now call The Enlightenment, and read all of the writings being produced by the great writers of the Enlightenment era, such as Hobbes, Locke, Newton, Rousseau, Voltaire, et al. Jefferson said that Sir Isaac Newton’s scientific work Principia Mathematica was the book he loved the most, and he could read it in Newton’s original Latin if he needed to.

Here is an example of a quote from James Madison which shows conclusively that the USA is a Christian country: [b]“To preserve the Republic, it is in the hands of the people. We have staked the entire future of the American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. [i]We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the [u]Ten Commandments of God.[/u][/i]”[/b]

There is your proof....

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 3 2005, 09:33 AM'] Of all the men who might be Founding Fathers, the only two who really count are Jefferson and Madison, as the United States is founded almost entirely on the writings and beliefs of these two men. Jefferson’s Declaration is held aloft as our national ideal, and certain key phrases are quoted from it as if reciting a prayer (e.g., “all men are created equal”). Madison’s Constitution is equally revered and studied now as the ideal foundation for human law.

The Founders studied history, lived during the historical era we now call The Enlightenment, and read all of the writings being produced by the great writers of the Enlightenment era, such as Hobbes, Locke, Newton, Rousseau, Voltaire, et al. Jefferson said that Sir Isaac Newton’s scientific work Principia Mathematica was the book he loved the most, and he could read it in Newton’s original Latin if he needed to.

Here is an example of a quote from James Madison which shows conclusively that the USA is a Christian country: [b]“To preserve the Republic, it is in the hands of the people. We have staked the entire future of the American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. [i]We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the [u]Ten Commandments of God.[/u][/i]”[/b]

There is your proof.... [/quote]
Funny you mention Jefferson , who was a deist and certainly did not believe in the bible. As far as America being founded as a christian nation, you need only look to the Treaty of Tripoli ,authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

[quote]Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;[/quote]

[quote]Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 3 2005, 12:52 AM'] I just think that sex is as close to a civil right as we get.  I think from a secular post-modernist standpoint, that makes gay sex a foregone conclusion.

I feel that the religious can best express themselves by voting their consciences.  But let's all remember something - Roe v. Wade is a court decision and was never brought to a vote.  It still hasn't been in 30 years.

I think that arguing for sex as a civil right is far easier and less of an uphill battle than arguing the reverse.  Therefore, the legality of gay sex seems to be the much clearer argument.

However, I didn't take into account the possibility that perhaps the reason outlawing heterosexual sex isn't unconstitutional is that nobody would ever think of it nor would the law ever be passed.  Taken from this viewpoint, the argument for gay sex and gay marriage holds a great deal less water.  But, my area of emphasis is medieval history, not constitutional law.  As such, I'll allow the lawyers to deal with this.

An interesting side development - I've never voted because I don't like the US government as an institution.  However, I suppose voting is the only way to make the US a better institution. [/quote]
Nobody has a right to sodomy. Of course, "secular postmodernists" will always want every kind of perverted activity to be a "right" and recognized as such by law, but this is totally irrelevent to what the Constitution actually says.

Your point about Roe v. Wade is exactly the point I was making about the tyranny of activist federal judges. Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional decision. There was no "right" to an abortion in the Constitution! Most states had laws against abortions, and the federal judiciary overstepped its bounds and declared all laws restricting abortions "unconstitutional" on no solid legal ground whatsoever.

They did this using the same logic that you use to say that homosexual "marriage" is a "constitutional right." They do this by not sticking to what the Constitution actually states, but by coming up with principles supposedly "implied" in the law to make their own law totally unrelated to the Constitution actually states.

The Fourth Ammendment states that the government may not make unreasonable searches of citizen's person or property. This is a just law, and clearly has nothing to do with sex or abortion.

However, liberals take this law and say that because the government can't conduct unreasonable searches, this means that citizens have an absolute "right to privacy," which then somehow means that everyone has an absolute right to abortion and homosexual "marriage."
This is absurd, and has nothing to do with what is actually written in the constitution. By this logic, judges can "infer" whatever they so desire from the constitution, and have their "interpretation" enforced on the states.

With regards to voting, and civil action, it seems you prefer to take the easy way out - do nothing and then say that defeat is inevitable. you seem to be saying someone should argue for something wrong rather than something right because the right would require too much of an "uphill battle."

The Democrats are determined to block any judicial appointments that would limit their decsions to what the Constitution actually states, rather than take a liberal activist view of the law. These Democratic congressmen were voted into office.
They should be voted out. Who we vote for makes a difference.

It's nice and easy to simply take a "hands-off" view and do nothing to prevent the country from sliding further into hell, while dreaming of going back to the middle ages. However, we must deal with the world we live in.

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Socrates

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 3 2005, 11:56 AM'] Nobody has a right to sodomy. Of course, "secular postmodernists" will always want every kind of perverted activity to be a "right" and recognized as such by law, but this is totally irrelevent to what the Constitution actually says.

Your point about Roe v. Wade is exactly the point I was making about the tyranny of activist federal judges. Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional decision. There was no "right" to an abortion in the Constitution! Most states had laws against abortions, and the federal judiciary overstepped its bounds and declared all laws restricting abortions "unconstitutional" on no solid legal ground whatsoever.

They did this using the same logic that you use to say that homosexual "marriage" is a "constitutional right." They do this by not sticking to what the Constitution actually states, but by coming up with principles supposedly "implied" in the law to make their own law totally unrelated to the Constitution actually states.

The Fourth Ammendment states that the government may not make unreasonable searches of citizen's person or property. This is a just law, and clearly has nothing to do with sex or abortion.

However, liberals take this law and say that because the government can't conduct unreasonable searches, this means that citizens have an absolute "right to privacy," which then somehow means that everyone has an absolute right to abortion and homosexual "marriage."
This is absurd, and has nothing to do with what is actually written in the constitution. By this logic, judges can "infer" whatever they so desire from the constitution, and pass it into written law to be enforced.

With regards to voting, and civil action, it seems you prefer to take the easy way out - do nothing and then say that defeat is inevitable. you seem to be saying someone should argue for something wrong rather than something right because the right would require too much of an "uphill battle."

The Democrats are determined to block any judicial appointments that would limit their decsions to what the Constitution actually states, rather than take a liberal activist view of the law. These Democratic congressmen were voted into office.
They should be voted out. Who we vote for makes a difference.

It's nice and easy to simply take a "hands-off" view and do nothing to prevent the country from sliding further into hell, while dreaming of going back to the middle ages. However, we must deal with the world we live in.

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. [/quote]
I wouldn't call it the easy way out. My problem is that voting my conscience can't really happen with political candidates. Why? Well I'd probably be voting libertarian because I don't believe in the government's right to control people's lives. On the other hand, I'm not sure being a libertarian and being Catholic go so nicely together.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 3 2005, 12:03 PM'] I wouldn't call it the easy way out.  My problem is that voting my conscience can't really happen with political candidates.  Why?  Well I'd probably be voting libertarian because I don't believe in the government's right to control people's lives.  On the other hand, I'm not sure being a libertarian and being Catholic go so nicely together. [/quote]
Joe Sobran's a Catholic conservative/libertarian commentator whose main point is how far the U.S. government has gone from the Constitution (which limited the power of Federal Government). I don't agree with all he says, but you might want to check him out if you want a Catholic libertarian pespective.

And i'd agree, being in the state of CA would create quite a dilemna of finding acceptable candidates to vote for!

Edited June 3, 2005 by Socrates

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 3 2005, 12:15 PM'] Joe Sobran's a Catholic conservative/libertarian commentator whose main point is how far the U.S. government has gone from the Constitution (which limited the power ofFederal Government). I don't agree with all he says, but you might want to check him out if you want a Catholic libertarian pespective.

And i'd agree, being in the state of CA would create quite a dilemna of finding acceptable candidates to vote for! [/quote]
Yes. We get to choose between socialists and republican actors.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:39 AM'] Funny you mention Jefferson , who was a deist and certainly did not believe in the bible. As far as America being founded as a christian nation, you need only look to the Treaty of Tripoli ,authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

[quote]Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;[/quote]

[quote]
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 [/quote]



[/quote]
Funny, I seem to remember that the Jews also had the ten commandments. I guess you've dispelled that crazy notion from my head.

Point is, the Ten Commandments do exist beyond the scope of Christianity.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

A huge logical flaw that many on the liberal side make, and try to convince those on the right that we're doing wrong, is that because a belief is held by a religious group it shouldn't be considered to be made into law. Here's how it goes.

Belief A is held by B
B is a religion
The US Government cannot enforce beliefs held by any religion
Therefore, the US Government cannot and should not hold to belief A

The flaw is that the belief is often beyond the scope of the church or churches in the US. Let's take an example where the above statements would be valid.

Belief in the Immaculate Conception is held by the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church is a religion
The US Government cannot enforce beliefs held by any religion
Therefore, the US Government cannot and should not hold to belief in the Immaculate Conception

Okay, that works. Let's try another one

Belief that Murder is a Crime is held by the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church is a religion
The US Government cannot enforce beliefs held by any religion
Therefore, the US Government cannot and should not hold to belief that Murder is a Crime.

Whoa! I think there's a flaw in our reasoning. The flaw is that a belief held by a Chruch may exist outside of the Church. Murder is wrong for multiple reasons: it violates the Ten Commandments (religious appeal), I wouldn't want it done to me, we should treat others with dignity and respect, it's messy to clean up, etc. Are any of those reasons wrong? Nope. Some may be 'better' than others.

However, there's an even greater flaw that secularists try to thrust upon us, and that is the idea that a religious reason is a bad reason for a law. Worse yet is that they only do this when convenient. If a law about welfare comes up we're reminded about what Jesus says about helping the poor and that if you don't support welfare then you're not being a Christian (this is an example and not meant as a threadjack). But when it comes to a belief like gay marraige then it's an argument that since mostly Christians believe it then we can't make it law. There are many great reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Even more, there aren't any great reasons why it SHOULD be allowed.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jun 3 2005, 02:09 PM']
However, there's an even greater flaw that secularists try to thrust upon us, and that is the idea that a religious reason is a bad reason for a law. Worse yet is that they only do this when convenient. If a law about welfare comes up we're reminded about what Jesus says about helping the poor and that if you don't support welfare then you're not being a Christian (this is an example and not meant as a threadjack). But when it comes to a belief like gay marraige then it's an argument that since mostly Christians believe it then we can't make it law. There are many great reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Even more, there aren't any great reasons why it SHOULD be allowed. [/quote]
We need only look to history or to modern day theocracies to see the ills of governing a society using religion. We can thank the creation of this great land of America for those very reasons above stated. In regards to murder. It has been wrong long before the 10 commandments have been around. If you need the 10 commandments to show you that murder is wrong, than you have serious problems. We know things to be wrong often by the fact that they harm people. On the other hand. We can thank the 10 commandments for showing us not to covet our neighbors servants, ox nor his/her donkey.

The fact is, that there isnt a good reason why homosexuals should not be able to be in a relationship, engage in sex in a free society. All of your reasons are purely religious. Because your myth regards it as an abomination. Luckily, society has advanced to recognize that indivuals should be afforded equal rights, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. In your society, homosexuals who engage in sex would be carted off to prison and serve time with killers and such. Welcome to New Saudi Arabia.

[MC Just]

Now a days everything is Constitutional, except God and Religion. Thanks to the liberal demoncrats.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 02:33 PM'] We need only look to history or to modern day theocracies to see the ills of governing a society using religion. We can thank the creation of this great land of America for those very reasons above stated. In regards to murder. It has been wrong long before the 10 commandments have been around. If you need the 10 commandments to show you that murder is wrong, than you have serious problems. We know things to be wrong often by the fact that they harm people. On the other hand. We can thank the 10 commandments for showing us not to covet our neighbors servants, ox nor his/her donkey.

The fact is, that there isnt a good reason why homosexuals should not be able to be in a relationship, engage in sex in a free society. All of your reasons are purely religious. Because your myth regards it as an abomination.  Luckily, society has advanced to recognize that indivuals should be afforded equal rights, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. In your society, homosexuals who engage in sex would be carted off to prison and serve time with killers and such. Welcome to New Saudi Arabia. [/quote]
how many times have selfish atheistic governments persecuted the church? We cant even count how many times. From the time of the old pagan roman empire until now. We also dont appreciate secularism undoing all the Good work the Church has done in the world.

We create colleges and schools and secularists take em over, we convert nations to Christendom and Secularists turn everyone into pagan state worshippers.

One day there will be a clash and we will win just like when we won against the muslims in the past. They surrounded us, they outnumbered us, but we still won. We will win this too. That's a promise.

Edited June 3, 2005 by MC Just

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Jun 3 2005, 02:49 PM'] how many times have selfish atheistic governments persecuted the church? We cant even count how many times. From the time of the old pagan roman empire until now. We also dont appreciate secularism undoing all the Good work the Church has done in the world.

We create colleges and schools and secularists take em over, we convert nations to Christendom and Secularists turn everyone into pagan state worshippers.

One day there will be a clash and we will win just like when we won against the muslims in the past. They surrounded us, they outnumbered us, but we still won. We will win this too. That's a promise. [/quote]
More like all you crazy religious nutz will kill each other off, and atheist will inherit the earth