Radicals wanted to create carnage at Fort Dix

[neonflux]

...Getting back to the "why now," hindsight is a wonderful thing. In the bracketing i gave you the US:

• Dithered on the fence during the Iranian Revolution (refused to help stabilize the Shah's government which we had supported since the 50s for its strategic footprint in the region, then immediately pissed off the Revolutionary Council allowing entrance into the US by the Shah for cancer treatment) and bumbled (Operation Ajax & freezing 8 billion in Iranian assets) badly during the US embassy hostage crisis in Tehran.
• Provoked an attack by Hezbollah on the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 over resentment for long term US support of Israel and lack of US sanction following Israeli actions in Lebanon.
• Failed to recognize Bin Laden as a threat while mutually providing support to the Mujahideen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Then, left the region to its own devices following the departure of the Soviets in 1989.

...As an example, think of a young man second or third male born into a family. Dad's grooming the eldest son to take over after he retires or dies. In the economy where this young man lives, few prospects exist for a productive life if any life at all. Swirling around the drain, or lying stagnant and rotting, hope beckons in the form of religion. The lucky join and become administrators for the maintenance of the congregation and/or further spread of the religion. What of the rest? "Wait! We have a place for all true believers. Come fight for us against those that do not believe as we do." Caught up in the fervent desire to return what little he can to what gave him hope, our young man agrees. Sound familiar? Click me

I really like what you say here - I think that the only way we will really bring an end to terrorism is to understand what makes a terrorist. Regarding your example of the young man, I think it's interesting that the majority of those who join Al Qaeda are young, educated, middle class men who are touched by what they see as the injustices done to their people, much like those who joined the most radical offshoots of the SDS, etc. in this country during the 60's. (I met a couple of those folks when I was in college and they were pretty scary...) Interesting, isn't it, how a repressive regime that we support, and whose country produced almost all of the 911 perpretators - the Saudies - is so good at exploiting such sentiments and using religion to aim discontent away from themselves...

I also think we need to give careful consideration to how what we are doing in Iraq is now breeding a whole new generation of terrorists who have every right to resent the U.S. At a recent conference on the medical/health aspects and consequences of the Iraq war, researchers stated that 90+ % of Iraqis now have had someone they love killed as a result of violence and that an even greater % suffers from severe Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome - this is even the case in geographic areas which the current administration likes to point to as successes.

PTSD + continuing violence + (yes, I am going to apply a Christian term to Muslims) "evangelizing" religious zealots = a poweder keg, as far as I can see.

Terrorism is not the provenance of cowards but of people who are desperate and feel that they have no other means. I do not condone it, but I understand why some resort to it. (For anyone who's a real geek, think of Battlestar Galactica's exploration of the why's and wherefore's behind terrorist tactics this past season.) And for those who would decry terrorist tactics because they "kill innocent civilians" but support "conventional state-sponsored warfare," "collateral damage" - click here for the Wikipedia definition - has been a chief U.S. military tactic since WWII.

Again, I am not justifying terrorism. Nor am I suggesting that we shouldn't do everything in our power to stop it. I am suggesting that some of our current tactics (excluding good police work) are doing more to create more terrorists than they are to bring an end to it, and that to bring an end to a phenomena, one must first understand it.

my 2¢
~ Neon

 

[minx1]

ITerrorism is not the provence of cowards but of people who are desperate and feel that they have no other means. I do not condone it, but I understand why some resort to it.

Again, I am not justifying terrorism. Nor am I suggesting that we shouldn't do everything in our power to stop it. I am suggesting that some of our current tactics (excluding good police work) are doing more to create more terrorists than they are to bring an end to it, and that to bring an end to a phenomena, one must first understand it.

my 2¢
~ Neon

In a nutshell. My sentiments exactly. Thankyou neon

 

[intothewoods]

Well, sure there's going to be problems like that. But, you'll have that anywhere. In a free society, you can't tell people how to think. So, you will always have a certain number of idiots who don't like somebody else because they are different. But, we try not to let someone act upon those hates, if possible. Gays and even BDSM lifestylers are outcast by some people. Black Americans have had their problems. In some situations, they still do. And during WWII, Japanese Americans were often seen as traitors or informants in this country. The Holocaust was a time when people acted on their hatred for the Jewish. And, even with all of the evidence and history about it, there are still some who say that never happened.

I don't mean antisemitism, although of course that exists here too. I mean, for example, trying to raise a son who's culturally Jewish in this country. It's not as easy as it looks. We don't have a Christmas tree in our house. And I'd prefer at his young age, that he not sing carols or participate in Easter egg hunts right now, since I think it would be confusing. In a few years, sure, but we aren't there yet. Do you know how much shit I get about this all the time?

There is a strong desire in this country for sameness. And I don't want to melt into the pot. I am trying to suggest there are issues here that are more subtle than whether or not someone is painting a swastika on my house.

 

[DVS]

I don't mean antisemitism, although of course that exists here too. I mean, for example, trying to raise a son who's culturally Jewish in this country. It's not as easy as it looks. We don't have a Christmas tree in our house. And I'd prefer at his young age, that he not sing carols or participate in Easter egg hunts right now, since I think it would be confusing. In a few years, sure, but we aren't there yet. Do you know how much shit I get about this all the time?

There is a strong desire in this country for sameness. And I don't want to melt into the pot. I am trying to suggest there are issues here that are more subtle than whether or not someone is painting a swastika on my house.

I understand that, and I can see how you could have a problem when you don't want your son to do some of those things. I'd bet there are some parents that will see that as depriving your son from the fun.

The sameness thing is understandable, too. That is part of what America strives for, in some ways. But, I don't think there is so much a sameness thing as there is an almost unwilling feeling to change. I see some people who seem to look at change as almost an infringment of their rights.

On the other hand, I don't like what is happening to those who want to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday...the same is happening to Easter. The policitally correct crowd is going overboard. The "in" phrase is "Happy Hollidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" so we won't offend someone. If someone said "Happy Chanukah" to me, I wouldn't be offended. I'd just say "thank you".

I don't know if it's because of Athiests, or if it's maybe seperatists not wanting to give Christians something other religions don't have access to.

And, religion is a volatile subject for most people. No matter how we feel about it, we feel strongly about it. And anyone who trys to take something away is seen as causing trouble. It's not an easy task, giving everyone with a different view the same equal space in time. I wonder if it's even possible.

Some of the strange things that have been happening in schools (and I'm not saying I know what is causing these changes to happen) are bothering me. It's almost like someone is nitpicking, just to piss people off. We always said the National Anthem in grade school, before the day began. Now, some schools are removing that, so not to offend non-Christians, because it has the words "One nation, under God" in it.

I can understand removing prayer in some form of assembly where everyone must attend. But, when you mess with the National Anthem, that's messing with everything this country is based upon.

 

[intothewoods]

We always said the National Anthem in grade school, before the day began. Now, some schools are removing that, so not to offend non-Christians, because it has the words "One nation, under God" in it.

I can understand removing prayer in some form of assembly where everyone must attend. But, when you mess with the National Anthem, that's messing with everything this country is based upon.

You mean, the pledge of allegiance? Except it's not really "everything this country is based on," considering that the phrase "under God" was added as an anti-commie thing in this century.

 

[DVS]

You mean, the pledge of allegiance? Except it's not really "everything this country is based on," considering that the phrase "under God" was added as an anti-commie thing in this century.

Oops, yes, the pledge of allegiance. Thank you.

It does mean a lot to many Americans. And, the changes are sometimes good and sometimes bad. The "under God" addition could be removed, in this century. Or, someone reciting it could just leave that part out. Some already do.

There have been changes before, and there will probably be changes as long as this country survives. But, doesn't the last part have a nice ring to it? ...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Edited to add...
The Knights of Columbus addition was in the 20th century. But, that is understandable, thinking it was this century. The 21st century is only seven years old. You, on the other hand, knew I was talking about the pledge of allegiance before I did.

 

[graceanne]

Whoa. I totally missed this before.



I never say Happy Holidays. I wish those who celebrate Christmas a Merry Christmas. I've got news for you. I don't want equal time. I like my peace and quiet in December. Please don't put up blue and white shit on my account. I could be wrong - but I'm guessing most devout Muslims don't want equal time either. They are commanded to pray a certain number of times a day, so they do. Likewise, I am not going to work on Jewish high holidays. I don't give two shits if you wish me a Happy New Year around that time. It's no skin off my back. I may be out of line here, but maybe you're pissed off at all of the politically correct folks that take the Christ out of Christmas. But is that really coming from Muslims?

To tell the truth I say Merry Christmas - I celebrate Christmas. I also don't want a fuss made, but SOME CHRISTIANS DO. I tend to avoid people at all around Christmas, cause people are assholes at that time of year.

Please clarify -- are your kids in public school???

I don't think it's expected. It's just that Christians don't normally lay out a rug and pray! It's not about equal time, it's about religious tolerance.



A teacher, or any employee of the state, has the right to practice their religion. Now, there are grey fuzzy areas here. But isn't it pretty clear that you can't preach, or use public money for a religious group, but taking personal time to pray is of course your right under the law?

I don't know where you live, but in Oregon they do not. They cannot practice their religion, if they're Christians, on school grounds. If teachers wanna get together and pray they have to find a place to do it off school grounds.

Oh, and my kids are sorta in public school - they're in a charter school. It's publically funded, but different teaching curriculum.

 

[intothewoods]

Edited to add...
The Knights of Columbus addition was in the 20th century. But, that is understandable, thinking it was this century. The 21st century is only seven years old. You, on the other hand, knew I was talking about the pledge of allegiance before I did.

Lol - I forgot we were in the 21st century.

 

[TooTiredToLive]

Lol - I forgot we were in the 21st century.

I wish I could forget the 21st century. Come to think of it, the 20th, too. I do believe I'd have been much happier in the 17th or 18th centuries - as long as I were a member of the ruling class.

 

[intothewoods]

I don't know where you live, but in Oregon they do not. They cannot practice their religion, if they're Christians, on school grounds. If teachers wanna get together and pray they have to find a place to do it off school grounds.

Then I guess Oregon's laws are unconstitutional. That must be it. No, probably not.

As an individual, you may practice your religion. You may pray. You may follow dietary guidelines. You may wear what you want. There's an old Supreme Court case about this one. Teachers have a right to be whatever religion they want, including Christian. Now, having a prayer group is a little more complicated under the law. It's all about using public property and public money. That's what a school board would be concerned about in passing an ordinance against prayer clubs. There are some cases - I seem to recall (and it's been a while since I looked at it) - that say you can have a prayer group, as long as it's not required, and not using public money (say, the school is open anyway for other clubs - that sort of thing). I would guess whatever law in Oregon you're talking about is pretty specific, and if not, I'd be surprised if it wasn't challenged.

Oh, and my kids are sorta in public school - they're in a charter school. It's publically funded, but different teaching curriculum.

Well, then of course their break is not called Easter break, and they don't come home with pictures of Jesus. As to the latter, especially, I would hope not, because my kid has a right to go there too.

Learning about Jesus and Christianity and religions, without indoctrination? Absolutely legal and an important part of education. Indoctrination? Sponsoring or favoring one religion over another, no matter what the religion? Not legal, not constitutional, not okay.

Look, I know there is something of an anti-Christian sentiment amongst some crowds in very liberal places like, say, San Francisco. I don't like that, and I do appreciate the perspective. But freedom of religion isn't something made up to keep lawyers at the ACLU off the streets. There is a real history to it, and reason to it, and logic to it. I often feel that some folks in this country get caught up in their camps, and that's that, without taking the time to know all the facts.

 

[intothewoods]

On the other hand, I don't like what is happening to those who want to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday...the same is happening to Easter. The policitally correct crowd is going overboard. The "in" phrase is "Happy Hollidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" so we won't offend someone. If someone said "Happy Chanukah" to me, I wouldn't be offended. I'd just say "thank you".

That's not "on the other hand" actually. That's part of my point. Yes, let Christians be Christians! I always say, please don't water down Christmas in order to include me! It won't work anyway. I'm different. And it's okay.

Merry Christmas doesn't offend me, as long as you get that I DON'T CELEBRATE IT. No, not a tree. No, no carols. No, no ham and mistletoe.

And yeah - this is why I had to explain to half a dozen people why I didn't want my almost three year old doing an easter egg hunt. No, it's not Jesus-centered. But it's culturally Christian. That's the origin, no matter how many chocolate eggs away you get from it. And please don't fucking lecture me about the pagans!!!!! I get it. Christians co-opted the whole damn thing. Take it up with Jesus. I can't help you. All I know is that their are Christian roots in these holidays, even if many Americans ignore that. As a Jew who thinks about what she is celebrating, I can't ignore it.

Ahem, sorry. Once I start, it is hard to stop. Luckily that has its good moments.

 

[graceanne]

Then I guess Oregon's laws are unconstitutional. That must be it. No, probably not.

As an individual, you may practice your religion. You may pray. You may follow dietary guidelines. You may wear what you want. There's an old Supreme Court case about this one. Teachers have a right to be whatever religion they want, including Christian. Now, having a prayer group is a little more complicated under the law. It's all about using public property and public money. That's what a school board would be concerned about in passing an ordinance against prayer clubs. There are some cases - I seem to recall (and it's been a while since I looked at it) - that say you can have a prayer group, as long as it's not required, and not using public money (say, the school is open anyway for other clubs - that sort of thing). I would guess whatever law in Oregon you're talking about is pretty specific, and if not, I'd be surprised if it wasn't challenged.

I don't know if it's the law or the education boards rules, but I do knwo it's true - or at least was when I went to school. Yes it's unconstitutional - do you ahev the money and time to fight the education board and/or state? I sure don't.

Well, then of course their break is not called Easter break, and they don't come home with pictures of Jesus. As to the latter, especially, I would hope not, because my kid has a right to go there too.

I was point out that the world doesn't celebrate Easter, not making a point that they should be allowed to do those things. I want it equal though - if my kids can't do things that celebrate their religion in school, then neither can anyone else's kids. Fair is fair.

[/quote]Learning about Jesus and Christianity and religions, without indoctrination? Absolutely legal and an important part of education. Indoctrination? Sponsoring or favoring one religion over another, no matter what the religion? Not legal, not constitutional, not okay.

Look, I know there is something of an anti-Christian sentiment amongst some crowds in very liberal places like, say, San Francisco. I don't like that, and I do appreciate the perspective. But freedom of religion isn't something made up to keep lawyers at the ACLU off the streets. There is a real history to it, and reason to it, and logic to it. I often feel that some folks in this country get caught up in their camps, and that's that, without taking the time to know all the facts.[/QUOTE]

I quite frankly could be reading this wrong, and if so I apologize, but I dont' appreciate the condescending 'you don't know your history' sentiment of this part. I know the history, and quite frankly if you REALLY wanna get into it, the founding fathers didn't actualy want freadom of religion, they wanted freadom for THEIR religion. If you disagree, talk to a wiccan or even a satanist about their religious history. Luckily the US has evolved past that, but I do know my history, and I do know what's behind it. My entire point is that if someone gets to do something cause they're muslim, and only cause their muslim, how is that freadom from religion. If I am expected to keep my religion out of a pulic area (like schools and courts, etc) SO ARE THEY. If they want to pray routinely through the day, then their needs to be religious accomodations made for everyone else. I just want the same considerations that are given to everyone else.

 

[intothewoods]

But, doesn't the last part have a nice ring to it? ...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Yes, it does.

(I still can't believe I said this century )

 

[neonflux]

edited out to shorten...
Look, I know there is something of an anti-Christian sentiment amongst some crowds in very liberal places like, say, San Francisco. I don't like that, and I do appreciate the perspective. But freedom of religion isn't something made up to keep lawyers at the ACLU off the streets. There is a real history to it, and reason to it, and logic to it. I often feel that some folks in this country get caught up in their camps, and that's that, without taking the time to know all the facts.

Well, I've lived in SF for over 20 years. I would never say that there's a prevelant anti-Christian bias - at least I've never seen it here - there are plenty of thriving Christian churches - I belong to/am active in the UU congregation - very liberal and not specifically Christian, but certainly originally Christian-based. I think the bias is more against intolerence - there is such a diversity here, people are careful to always be inclusive and respectful to everyone. If that is perceived as being anti-Christian elsewhere *shrug*

Neon

 

[minx1]

My entire point is that if someone gets to do something cause they're muslim, and only cause their muslim, how is that freadom from religion. If I am expected to keep my religion out of a pulic area (like schools and courts, etc) SO ARE THEY. If they want to pray routinely through the day, then their needs to be religious accomodations made for everyone else. I just want the same considerations that are given to everyone else.

I think its more about what is stipulated in the Quran...in terms of the number of times a day to pray, when and how(washed feet and hands) rather than when they want to. Not being religious, my knowledge in this area is a bit sparce, but I am not sure if there are stipulations/guidlines like this in other faith books??

 

[graceanne]

I think its more about what is stipulated in the Quran...in terms of the number of times a day to pray, when and how(washed feet and hands) rather than when they want to. Not being religious, my knowledge in this area is a bit sparce, but I am not sure if there are stipulations/guidlines like this in other faith books??

Saturday (the seventh day) is the day of rest. If I applied for a job where I was required to work on Saturday, and then told them that I couldn't work that day, they'd fire me. (Most likely, they might work with me, but they wouldn't have to.)

 

[minx1]

Saturday (the seventh day) is the day of rest. If I applied for a job where I was required to work on Saturday, and then told them that I couldn't work that day, they'd fire me. (Most likely, they might work with me, but they wouldn't have to.)

Well thats wrong in my opinion. Here we have Sunday trading but even the government website says that if you have a problem with this as a practising Christian you should raise it as it is illegal to discriminate against someone for their religious beliefs.

 

[graceanne]

Well thats wrong in my opinion. Here we have Sunday trading but even the government website says that if you have a problem with this as a practising Christian you should raise it as it is illegal to discriminate against someone for their religious beliefs.

I agree that it's wrong. That's pretty much my point. I have no problem with making allowances for their religion, I just want similar allowances for mine.

 

[intothewoods]

I don't know if it's the law or the education boards rules, but I do knwo it's true - or at least was when I went to school. Yes it's unconstitutional - do you ahev the money and time to fight the education board and/or state? I sure don't.

No, I'm not suggesting it's all up to you, graceanne.

I was point out that the world doesn't celebrate Easter, not making a point that they should be allowed to do those things. I want it equal though - if my kids can't do things that celebrate their religion in school, then neither can anyone else's kids. Fair is fair.

If by "fair is fair" you mean that everyone should have equal rights, I completely agree. But equality doesn't mean sameness. Again. No one should be allowed to "celebrate" in school - I agree.

I quite frankly could be reading this wrong, and if so I apologize, but I dont' appreciate the condescending 'you don't know your history' sentiment of this part. I know the history, and quite frankly if you REALLY wanna get into it, the founding fathers didn't actualy want freadom of religion, they wanted freadom for THEIR religion. If you disagree, talk to a wiccan or even a satanist about their religious history. Luckily the US has evolved past that, but I do know my history, and I do know what's behind it. My entire point is that if someone gets to do something cause they're muslim, and only cause their muslim, how is that freadom from religion. If I am expected to keep my religion out of a pulic area (like schools and courts, etc) SO ARE THEY. If they want to pray routinely through the day, then their needs to be religious accomodations made for everyone else. I just want the same considerations that are given to everyone else.

No, I'll admit I'm being condescending, because honestly, you are painting with a very overbroad brush what is actually a complicated set of issues. I don't need to talk to a wiccan or a satanist. Do ya know how many Jews there were in revolutionary America? Not all that many. I know my own religious history, so thanks, I'm all good.

I disagree, wholeheartedly, that the founding fathers wanted freedom for their religion only, though I agree that the founding fathers were Christian, and that is certainly part of the history. I get that Thomas Jefferson wasn't thinking of Wiccans, or even Jews. But the idea was more than, let's protect ourselves. That's all I'm saying. Also, "what the founding fathers thought" isn't one coherent idea, first of all, and, more importantly, it's only one thing to consider when interpreting and applying the constitution.

 

[intothewoods]

Saturday (the seventh day) is the day of rest. If I applied for a job where I was required to work on Saturday, and then told them that I couldn't work that day, they'd fire me. (Most likely, they might work with me, but they wouldn't have to.)

They wouldn't necessarily have to work with someone who was Muslim either, if it prevented a company from conducting business. There was a Jew who wanted to wear a kipah in the army. The army said no. He sued, and lost. Because it's the army! It's not like everything is so clear cut.

 

[intothewoods]

Almost forgot.

Well, I've lived in SF for over 20 years. I would never say that there's a prevelant anti-Christian bias - at least I've never seen it here - there are plenty of thriving Christian churches - I belong to/am active in the UU congregation - very liberal and not specifically Christian, but certainly originally Christian-based. I think the bias is more against intolerence - there is such a diversity here, people are careful to always be inclusive and respectful to everyone. If that is perceived as being anti-Christian elsewhere *shrug*

Neon

Ok, who am I kidding - I knew I wouldn't get away with that! No, it's not about SF - I love that place.

I was trying to get at the sort of person who has a knee jerk reaction to all Christians, based on the behavior of extreme right wing fundamentalist Christians in this country.

 

[DVS]

Saturday (the seventh day) is the day of rest. If I applied for a job where I was required to work on Saturday, and then told them that I couldn't work that day, they'd fire me. (Most likely, they might work with me, but they wouldn't have to.)

In my job, and in most security and law enforcement positions, there are no holidays. If your day off happens to fall on Sunday, you're lucky, because you get that day off. If your day off happens to fall on Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, or whatever...you are lucky. Otherwise, you must work that day as any normal work day.

I think police probably get paid extra for working those days, but most security companies don't pay extra for working holidays. Sure, you get the extra 8 hours for the holiday pay, but even those who don't work that day get the holiday pay. What I'm talking about is getting paid time and 1/2 or double time because you had to work on Christmas Day, or Easter. No such luck. If it falls on your regular work day, you get your regular pay.

Missouri and Kansas are employment at will states. Don't confuse that with right to work states, which Kansas is. Employ at will states are states where the business can fire you at any time, without cause and without notice. And, the employee can quit at any time, the same way. Right to work states are states where employees are not required to join a union. If one forms, you are not forced to join and you can't be fired if you ever quit the union, but not the job. Missouri is a union state.

The bad part of an employ at will state is the employer can force things upon you that you might rather not do. Such as work on religous holidays. And, I don't get a lunch break. In some states, such as California, it's the law to give an employee a lunch greak if he works at least 5 hours. Not here. And, I don't get any breaks, unless I really fight for them. If I don't like anything the employer does or wants me to do, my only option is to find another job.

But, in some cases, you could be worse off, going someplace else. You are always asked why you left the previous job, and they usually want to contact your former employer. Don't stiff one employer, because the next one might look at you like you will do the same with them, some day.

The only reason I can get any breaks at all is because Kansas City has laws about smoking. So, even though I don't smoke, I could complain that I should get the same break that smokers get. The reason I have leverage on something like this is because equality is required. No employee can be favored over another. It's the same thing as with religion. You benefit one religion, you must benefit all religions. Either that, or you don't benefit any of them.

It's just how things are in some situations. Fighting the government, local or federal is sometimes far from practical, if at all possible. Now, if you have the money for a good lawyer, I'm sure you can find one that wants to get a class action thing going. He will love it, because he will probably be either in the national limelight or the local limelight and that's good for his business.

But, all the time the court case is going on, you are out of a job. The first motice that you're filing claim against your employer is your last minute on the job. So, any form of relgious complaint would be treated the same way.

Maybe in some places it's possible to do more complaining but I wonder just how much I'd get away with, wanting Christmas Day off, for religious reasons. My name would be known in the community so I'd be finding another line of work, I'm sure.

 

[neonflux]

Almost forgot.


Ok, who am I kidding - I knew I wouldn't get away with that! No, it's not about SF - I love that place.

I was trying to get at the sort of person who has a knee jerk reaction to all Christians, based on the behavior of extreme right wing fundamentalist Christians in this country.

Ah, not to worry! I just love my town too much - can get a little defensive, LOL

 

[graceanne]

No, I'll admit I'm being condescending, because honestly, you are painting with a very overbroad brush what is actually a complicated set of issues. I don't need to talk to a wiccan or a satanist. Do ya know how many Jews there were in revolutionary America? Not all that many. I know my own religious history, so thanks, I'm all good.

I'm 'painting with an overbroad' brush to make a point. This is not a conversation on our history, is it? There's not time to make minute points about stuff.

And considering I'm Jewish, I know how many Jews there were. As I already stated, I know my history.

I disagree, wholeheartedly, that the founding fathers wanted freedom for their religion only, though I agree that the founding fathers were Christian, and that is certainly part of the history. I get that Thomas Jefferson wasn't thinking of Wiccans, or even Jews.

Who, exactly, was he thinking of?

But the idea was more than, let's protect ourselves. That's all I'm saying. Also, "what the founding fathers thought" isn't one coherent idea, first of all, and, more importantly, it's only one thing to consider when interpreting and applying the constitution.

Which goes into the part I was saying, about 'evolving' past their original thought. But know what? Obviously I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything, cause I disagree with you. I don't know why I bother banging my head on this wall, cause you KNOW IT ALL.

 

[intothewoods]

I'm 'painting with an overbroad' brush to make a point. This is not a conversation on our history, is it? There's not time to make minute points about stuff.

And considering I'm Jewish, I know how many Jews there were. As I already stated, I know my history.

Who, exactly, was he thinking of?

Which goes into the part I was saying, about 'evolving' past their original thought. But know what? Obviously I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything, cause I disagree with you. I don't know why I bother banging my head on this wall, cause you KNOW IT ALL.

Huh? I am so confused.

First of all, you're Jewish? I missed that one!

Anyway - don't hurt yourself with the head banging. I don't think people who disagree with me are idiots. That would make me an idiot, and I'm not one.

Shabat Shalom!