According to a UCLA study Fox News is centrist

[Thorgasm]

lol the study of Politics is scientific I should know I'm a political Science major if there is no empirical political information how is it that for my major an Empirical political analysis class (which I have taken) is a required course. As for Nixon one would have to use the agreed upon definition of liberalism and then examine his policies measured against the policies of the past here is the political spectrum in its entirety:

Now here are the definitions:

Radical: Seen as being on the far left of the political spectrum, radicals call for wide-sweeping rapid change in the basic structure of the political, social, or economic system. They may be willing to resort to extreme methods to bring about change, including the use of violence and revolution.


Liberal: Liberals believe that the government should be actively involved in the promotion of social welfare of a nation's citizens. Liberals usually call for peaceful, gradual change within the existing political system. They reject violent revolution as a way of changing the way things are, often called the status quo.


Moderate: Moderates may share viewpoints with both liberals and conservatives. They are seen as tolerant of other people's views, and they do not hold extreme views of their own. They advocate a "go-slow" or "wait-and-see" approach to social or political change.


Conservative: People who hold conservative ideals favor keeping things the way they are or maintaining the status quo if it is what they desire. Conservatives are usually hesitant or cautious about adopting new policies, especially if they involve government activism in some way. They feel that the less government there is, the better. They agree with Jefferson's view that "the best government governs least."


Reactionary: Sitting on the far right of the ideological spectrum, reactionaries want to go back to the way things were-the "good ol' days." Often reactionaries are willing to use extreme methods, such as repressive use of government power, to achieve their goals.

http://www.usnewsclassroom.com/resources/activities/act010604.html

An agreed upon definition of liberalism huh? Agreed upon by whom? Society?And you still want to call it a science? There is nothing scientific about a social construct. Political science is an oxymoron second only to christian science. First of all, it would be more accurate if it were a three dimensional chart. This either/or logic fallacy doesn't cut the mustard. Your chart implies that moderates only want change on every other issue. The want a medium-sized government that only regulates half of the issues. They only want personal responsibility sometimes? C'mon, if it were truly empirical and scientific, this forum wouldn't exist.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

An agreed upon definition of liberalism huh? Agreed upon by whom? Society?And you still want to call it a science? There is nothing scientific about a social construct. Political science is an oxymoron second only to christian science. First of all, it would be more accurate if it were a three dimensional chart. This either/or logic fallacy doesn't cut the mustard. Your chart implies that moderates only want change on every other issue. The want a medium-sized government that only regulates half of the issues. They only want personal responsibility sometimes? C'mon, if it were truly empirical and scientific, this forum wouldn't exist.

lol you are just simply wrong and this is what I don't understand about you people despite all the factual evidence provided to the contrary you still attempt to offer your opinions up as evidence in defense of an invalid statement, economics are a social construct are you really suggesting that the study of economics is not a scientific field?

Political science is a social science:

social sciences - a group of academic disciplines that study the human aspects of the world. They diverge from the arts and humanities in that the social sciences emphasize the use of the scientific method and rigorous standards of evidence in the study of humanity, including quantitative and qualitative methods.

The social sciences are also known pejoratively as the soft sciences in contrast to the hard sciences.

Social science theories typically deal with aggregated, not individual, behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science

Political science: a discipline that deals with the theory and practice of politics and the description and analysis of political systems and political behavior. It is academic, theoretical and research oriented.

Fields and subfields of political science include political theory and philosophy, civics and comparative politics, national systems, cross-national political analysis, political development, international relations, foreign policy, international law and politics, public administration, administrative behavior, public law, judicial behavior, and politics and public policy.

Approaches to the discipline include classical political philosophy, structuralism, and behavioralism, realism, pluralism, and institutionalism. Political science, as one of the social sciences, uses methods and techniques that relate to the kinds of inquiries sought: primary sources such as historical documents and official records, secondary sources such as scholarly journal articles, survey research, statistical analysis, and model building.

Herbert Baxter Adams is credited with coining the phrase "political science" while teaching history at Johns Hopkins University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science

This is the scientific method and is what was used when conducting the UCLA research paper:

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

This is called a scientific theory which the research paper created in that they came to the conclusion that the media is biased:

Scientific Theory: scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Now that I've given you a refresher course in 6th grade science let's see what opinion you offer up as fact next.

 

[Thorgasm]

Certain aspects of economics certainly are scientific. Philosophies are not scientific though. Yes, I know scientific method. Tell me how political or social science experiments though (step 4). I am not sure that the term "soft science" is a pejorative description. I would say accurate. It only deals in theories and no hard facts or laws. This could be why they aren't very good at their predictions. Tell me, who will switch parties next? What will the Dow Jones be at this time next year? What will be the counter-culture fad in America this time next year? Run your expiriments and get back to me on that one.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Certain aspects of economics certainly are scientific. Philosophies are not scientific though. Yes, I know scientific method. Tell me how political or social science experiments though (step 4). I am not sure that the term "soft science" is a pejorative description. I would say accurate. It only deals in theories and no hard facts or laws. This could be why they aren't very good at their predictions. Tell me, who will switch parties next? What will the Dow Jones be at this time next year? What will be the counter-culture fad in America this time next year? Run your expiriments and get back to me on that one.

Read the definition of a theory as it applies to the scientific method that I provided again. That is like saying that gravity isn't science because it's only a theory. How can you tell gravity is real you can't experiment on it.

Opponents of the division in the sciences counter that the "social sciences" often make systematic statistical studies in strictly controlled environments, or that these conditions are not adhered to by the natural sciences either (for example, behavioral biology relies upon fieldwork in uncontrolled environments, astronomy cannot design experiments, only observe limited conditions). Opponents of the division also point out that each of the current "hard sciences" suffered a similar "lack of rigor" in its own infancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Social_sciences

 

[hipsterdufus]

Trajan - I think those charts are overly simplistic, but are a good starting point for debate.

Now here are the definitions:
Radical: Seen as being on the far left of the political spectrum, radicals call for wide-sweeping rapid change in the basic structure of the political, social, or economic system. They may be willing to resort to extreme methods to bring about change, including the use of violence and revolution.

I could make a strong argument that the GOP / Bush 2006 Budget, passed yesterday, is "radical" for it's across the board elimination of help for the least fortunate among us. Reverse Robin Hood of the highest order.

Liberal: Liberals believe that the government should be actively involved in the promotion of social welfare of a nation's citizens. Liberals usually call for peaceful, gradual change within the existing political system. They reject violent revolution as a way of changing the way things are, often called the status quo.

That's a pretty small definition of liberal. I like these a little better:

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

http://www.answers.com/topic/liberalism

Liberals tend to be:

a) pro government regulation of industry to protect the health and welfare of the country

b) pro choice regarding abortions

c) pro environmentally beneficial regulation (subset of a)

d) anti discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation

e) anti imperialistic military actions

f) anti draft

g) pro intellectualism (i.e., higher education)

h) pro international cooperation

i) anti nationalism and national religion

Turn all those around and you get what conservatives tend to be.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/simple/index.php/t7172.html

Moderate: Moderates may share viewpoints with both liberals and conservatives. They are seen as tolerant of other people's views, and they do not hold extreme views of their own. They advocate a "go-slow" or "wait-and-see" approach to social or political change.

Sounds about right. Yawn.

Conservative: People who hold conservative ideals favor keeping things the way they are or maintaining the status quo if it is what they desire. Conservatives are usually hesitant or cautious about adopting new policies, especially if they involve government activism in some way. They feel that the less government there is, the better. They agree with Jefferson's view that "the best government governs least."

If only the conservatives in your party fallowed these ideals!

Reactionary: Sitting on the far right of the ideological spectrum, reactionaries want to go back to the way things were-the "good ol' days." Often reactionaries are willing to use extreme methods, such as repressive use of government power, to achieve their goals.

This seems wrong to me. I see the reactionaries as the ones who want to let the poor rot, teach ID in school, promote abstinence only education, kill unions, waste the environment, kill Social Security, let corporations run the country etc. etc. These are all vast departures from any preconceived notion of the good old days unless that means the Middle Ages to you.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trajan - I think those charts are overly simplistic, but are a good starting point for debate.



I could make a strong argument that the GOP / Bush 2006 Budget, passed yesterday, is "radical" for it's across the board elimination of help for the least fortunate among us. Reverse Robin Hood of the highest order.



That's a pretty small definition of liberal. I like these a little better:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal


http://www.answers.com/topic/liberalism

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/simple/index.php/t7172.html



Sounds about right. Yawn.



If only the conservatives in your party fallowed these ideals!



This seems wrong to me. I see the reactionaries as the ones who want to let the poor rot, teach ID in school, promote abstinence only education, kill unions, waste the environment, kill Social Security, let corporations run the country etc. etc. These are all vast departures from any preconceived notion of the good old days unless that means the Middle Ages to you.

You can disagree with the definitions all you want but you're still wrong these are the agreed upon definitions by every major scholar for the last hundred years and are the ones taught in every university throughout North America and Western Europe, the confusion lies in the fact that neo-conservatives are only conservative in that they accept the status quo of the New Deal and post WW2 America, I suggest you figure out what a paleo-con is; furthermore, confusion is found in the fact that neo-liberalism is an economic theory not a political theory and one which the neo-conservatives prescribe to.

 

[hipsterdufus]

You can disagree with the definitions all you want but you're still wrong these are the agreed upon definitions by every major scholar for the last hundred years and are the ones taught in every university throughout North America and Western Europe, the confusion lies in the fact that neo-conservatives are only conservative in that they accept the status quo of the New Deal and post WW2 America, I suggest you figure out what a paleo-con is; furthermore, confusion is found in the fact that neo-liberalism is an economic theory not a political theory and one which the neo-conservatives prescribe to.

I was making the point that this K-12 chart was an over simplification.
Here: http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/activity/lawmaker/spectrum.gif

I hope your Poli-Sci profs aren't using charts like these.

I don't disagree with the definitions - I'm saying that you can't pigeon hole politicians into these neatly assigned categories.

So much of the neo-con men work is VERY radical: Eliminate Public Schools, No Separation of Church and State, End Welfare, Reverse Robin Hood economics etc. This is a definition of the left in traditional terms.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I was making the point that this K-12 chart was an over simplification.
Here: http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/activity/lawmaker/spectrum.gif

I hope your Poli-Sci profs aren't using charts like these.

I don't disagree with the definitions - I'm saying that you can't pigeon hole politicians into these neatly assigned categories.

So much of the neo-con men work is VERY radical: Eliminate Public Schools, No Separation of Church and State, End Welfare, Reverse Robin Hood economics etc. This is a definition of the left in traditional terms.

As for eliminating public schools that is a complete fabrication and no-one has proposed that at all what HAS been proposed are student vouchers I prefer to call it giving people a choice as to what schools their children can go to by giving them vouchers, you do realize that the biggest opponents to this are rich liberal elitests who all send their kids to private schools and claim to support helping the poor through tax increases while keeping their own money in tax exempt offshore accounts ie Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Ending the seperation of church and state you say? Wow talk about your propaganda I don't recall Bush trying to establish a theocracy buddy.

As for welfare, individualism is the backbone of conservative ideology so how can it be leftist to want to end welfare?

Reverse Robin hood economics? You mean allowing the people to keep the money that they earn as opposed to stealing it and giving it to people who don't deserve it.

The latter is called communism and that's the first time I've ever heard anyone describe communism as a conservative ideology unless of course you're from Russia.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Ending the seperation of church and state you say? Wow talk about your propaganda I don't recall Bush trying to establish a theocracy buddy.

You raised a lot of points here, but I'm choosing to address the establishment of a theocracy in the US since it's so timely.

I posted on Bush's war against education here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=179610&postcount=12

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."
U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT,

In 2004, forty-eight out of fifty-one Republican Senators voted with the Christian Coalition 100% of the time. One Democrat also received a 100% scorecard -- Zell Miller who has since retired.

The Ohio Restoration Project was founded:

to identify and train thousands of "Patriot Pastors" to get out the conservative religious vote next year. According to press reports, the leader of the movement -- the senior pastor of a large church in suburban Columbus -- casts the 2006 elections as an apocalyptic clash between "the forces of righteousness and the hordes of hell." more

www.theocracywatch.org

Religious Liberty Watchdog Group Calls On Senate To Reject Alito

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. harbors a narrow view of religious liberty and would likely join the Supreme Court’s most conservative members in dismantling the wall separating religion and government, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServS...ticle&id=7705&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

Said Carter, “Lately, what has been of great concern, in addition to what I’ve already said, is the merger of…religion and politics. Because I happen to be a Christian and I think my religion teaches me that you should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, said that we should build a wall between the church and state. That wall is being deliberately and ostentatiously, not secretly, broken down. So, there has been an increasing merger in this country of fundamentalism on the religious side, fundamentalism on the political side, and the two have come together.”

Carter’s new book, Our Endangered Values, addresses his concern about religion and government. The book is currently #1 on the New York Times best-sellers list.

http://blog.au.org/2005/12/jimmy_carter_th.html

 

[DeeJayH]

As for eliminating public schools that is a complete fabrication and no-one has proposed that at all what HAS been proposed are student vouchers I prefer to call it giving people a choice as to what schools their children can go to by giving them vouchers, you do realize that the biggest opponents to this are rich liberal elitests who all send their kids to private schools and claim to support helping the poor through tax increases while keeping their own money in tax exempt offshore accounts ie Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Ending the seperation of church and state you say? Wow talk about your propaganda I don't recall Bush trying to establish a theocracy buddy.

As for welfare, individualism is the backbone of conservative ideology so how can it be leftist to want to end welfare?

Reverse Robin hood economics? You mean allowing the people to keep the money that they earn as opposed to stealing it and giving it to people who don't deserve it.

The latter is called communism and that's the first time I've ever heard anyone describe communism as a conservative ideology unless of course you're from Russia.

beautifully articulated
:applaud

 

[DeeJayH]

You raised a lot of points here, but I'm choosing to address the establishment of a theocracy in the US since it's so timely.

I posted on Bush's war against education here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=179610&postcount=12

www.theocracywatch.org

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr005=k2qy7690z1.app5b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7705&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

http://blog.au.org/2005/12/jimmy_carter_th.html

and which of these votes were for Establishing a Christian Theocracy?
take your time digging it up. I am sure it will take a long time

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You raised a lot of points here, but I'm choosing to address the establishment of a theocracy in the US since it's so timely.

I posted on Bush's war against education here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=179610&postcount=12



www.theocracywatch.org


http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServS...ticle&id=7705&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241


http://blog.au.org/2005/12/jimmy_carter_th.html

It's like I'm teaching a political science class:

Theocracy: A form of government in which the clergy exercise or bestow all legitimate political authority and in which religious law is dominant over civil law and enforced by state agencies.

Now tell me hip when exactly has anyone from the Republicans forced Christian law on the masses? Are people being forced to attend church or forced to pray to Jesus? I think your whole problem is that you misunderstand the terminology. The first amendment prevents the establishment of a religion by the state or prohibiting the free expression there of, which is what a theocracy would have done it does NOT, on the other hand, secure the exclusion of all things Christian from the state.

And I'm agnostic so I'm an unbiased observer.

As for Carter:

"Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." - Ronald Reagan

 

[JOHNYJ]

The democratic party was the majority party for over 40 years in a row,From 1932 on.I was what use to be called a New deal democrat,a Roosevelt democrat, even a JFK democrat. Than the democratic party turned left and has kept that direction more or less. It pushed people to the right by its extreme turn to the left.
Most Americans know their newspapers have a liberal bias that isnt as infuriating as their arrogance. It is extremly difficult to get a liberal newspaper to admit when it makes a mistake.Almost like Prtesident Bush LOL .

 

[hipsterdufus]

It's like I'm teaching a political science class:

Theocracy: A form of government in which the clergy exercise or bestow all legitimate political authority and in which religious law is dominant over civil law and enforced by state agencies.

Now tell me hip when exactly has anyone from the Republicans forced Christian law on the masses? Are people being forced to attend church or forced to pray to Jesus? I think your whole problem is that you misunderstand the terminology. The first amendment prevents the establishment of a religion by the state or prohibiting the free expression there of, which is what a theocracy would have done it does NOT, on the other hand, secure the exclusion of all things Christian from the state.

And I'm agnostic so I'm an unbiased observer.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

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.

the·oc·ra·cy
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=theocracy

Bush's religious faith is inappropriately dictatating policy.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

”The president, in making the decision to go to war, did not ask his secretary of defense for an overall recommendation, did not ask his secretary of state, Colin Powell, for his recommendation,” says Woodward.

http://www.patridiots.com/000552.html

Bush has claimed that ID (creationism) should be taught in schools.

Bush has invested millions in faith based initiatives.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=theocracy

Bush's religious faith is inappropriately dictatating policy.




http://www.patridiots.com/000552.html

Bush has claimed that ID (creationism) should be taught in schools.

Bush has invested millions in faith based initiatives.

Has congress passed a law forcing you to Pray to Jesus??? No sir saying gods name is not a violation of the first amendment in fact it is protected by the first amendment if it wasn't that would be a theocracy an athiest theocracy.

"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God." - George Washington

Holy **** Washington tried to establish a theocracy. :roll:

 

[Engimo]

Has congress passed a law forcing you to Pray to Jesus??? No sir saying gods name is not a violation of the first amendment in fact it is protected by the first amendment if it wasn't that would be a theocracy an athiest theocracy.

You know, I wish you would stop going around through these threads and going on about atheism as a religion - the idea is retarded. Listen to me: Atheism is not a religion, saying otherwise is just idiotic and defies all common and useful definitions of the word.

What he is saying is that Bush's "talks with God" or ideas about his religion should not be dictating United States national policy, as we're not a Christian nation, we are a fundamentally religiously-neutral one.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You know, I wish you would stop going around through these threads and going on about atheism as a religion - the idea is retarded. Listen to me: Atheism is not a religion, saying otherwise is just idiotic and defies all common and useful definitions of the word.

What he is saying is that Bush's "talks with God" or ideas about his religion should not be dictating United States national policy, as we're not a Christian nation, we are a fundamentally religiously-neutral one.

According to scholars you're wrong according to the parameters set forth by the definition of religion Atheism corresponds to every single one.

Secondly you may want to read up on the declaration of independence and the Constitution, this country was founded upon absolutest morality and alot of Christian ideas, you look at the First Amendment and see the abolishment of religion I see the First Amendment and see a guarantee that religion cannot be abolished. You're simply misinterpreting the historical context the F.F.'s did not want religion out of the state they just didn't want the state to force the Christian religion upon anyone nor did they want anyone to force their atheist ideals on anyone. You people are doing with atheism what you're accusing the Christians of doing that is establishing a policy on religion a policy that atheism should be the state church.

 

[Thorgasm]

According to scholars you're wrong according to the parameters set forth by the definition of religion Atheism corresponds to every single one.

You people are doing with atheism what you're accusing the Christians of doing that is establishing a policy on religion a policy that atheism should be the state church.

What scholars? What parameters? How can non-religion be the state religion?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What scholars? What parameters? How can non-religion be the state religion?

The definition of religion taught in universities is any belief system that centers around a pivotal value to which all other values are subordinate. Atheism is a religion they write their own books, have their own philosophy, have their own zealots like that guy who's trying to get one nation under god out of the pledge, atheism is a religion.

The point of the first amendment is so that the State doesn't have a specific stance on religion one way or the other, that no longer is the case the official religious policy of the state is now atheism, that is the violation of the first amendment, they have passed laws to prevent religious expression in direct contradiction to F.F.'s original intent.

 

[Thorgasm]

The definition of religion taught in universities is any belief system that centers around a pivotal value to which all other values are subordinate. Atheism is a religion they write their own books, have their own philosophy, have their own zealots like that guy who's trying to get one nation under god out of the pledge, atheism is a religion.

The point of the first amendment is so that the State doesn't have a specific stance on religion one way or the other, that no longer is the case the official religious policy of the state is now atheism, that is the violation of the first amendment, they have passed laws to prevent religious expression in direct contradiction to F.F.'s original intent.

You're kidding right? What is the pivotal value to which all other values are subordinate that atheists hold? Is economics a religion? It seems to fit the parameters you stated.

Where has the government passed a law that says, "There is no god."?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You're kidding right? What is the pivotal value to which all other values are subordinate that atheists hold? Is economics a religion? It seems to fit the parameters you stated.

Where has the government passed a law that says, "There is no god."?

Find where the constitution declares a seperation between church and state and then get back to me.

I'm agnostic and I see both points of view on this one and the atheists are just wrong, atheism is a religion in that the pivotal value is that their is no god all other values are subordinate to that one pivotal value, to declare secularism as official state policy is by the very definition of the first amendment a violation of said amendment, the congress shall pass NO law establishing a religion, or to prevent the free expression therof, but that is exactly what the state has been doing time and time again.

 

[Thorgasm]

Find where the constitution declares a seperation between church and state and then get back to me..

We have been through this. This has nothing to do with your argument.

I'm agnostic and I see both points of view on this one and the atheists are just wrong, atheism is a religion in that the pivotal value is that their is no god all other values are subordinate to that one pivotal value, to declare secularism as official state policy is by the very definition of the first amendment a violation of said amendment, the congress shall pass NO law establishing a religion, or to prevent the free expression therof, but that is exactly what the state has been doing time and time again.

You have failed to cite a source defining religion using these arbitrary and subjective parameters. How would you know that an atheist holds the value that there is no god higher than any other value? There is no dogma associated with being an atheist.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Find where the constitution declares a seperation between church and state and then get back to me.

I'm agnostic and I see both points of view on this one and the atheists are just wrong, atheism is a religion in that the pivotal value is that their is no god all other values are subordinate to that one pivotal value, to declare secularism as official state policy is by the very definition of the first amendment a violation of said amendment, the congress shall pass NO law establishing a religion, or to prevent the free expression therof, but that is exactly what the state has been doing time and time again.

That's like my fundy friend tyrying to convince me that belief in evolution is a religion....:roll:

 

[Engimo]

You have failed to cite a source defining religion using these arbitrary and subjective parameters. How would you know that an atheist holds the value that there is no god higher than any other value? There is no dogma associated with being an atheist.

Honestly, don't even bother. I spent a couple pages trying to convince him of the fact that atheism is not a religion, but he holds to his idea that the "scholarly" definition of religion includes atheism (which is utter nonsense).

 

[DeeJayH]

Honestly, don't even bother. I spent a couple pages trying to convince him of the fact that atheism is not a religion, but he holds to his idea that the "scholarly" definition of religion includes atheism (which is utter nonsense).

and yet, since RvW abortion has the definition of a medical procedure
instead of the MURDER that it is
guess that isnt relevant either because it too, in the minds of so many, is utter nonsense:shock: