Topic: virginia tech shooting

[VulturEMaN]

ok.


but which state do you think is the most effed up then? 

[J.R.]

It depends on how you're looking at it.  If you're talking about corruption, Mississippi has been documented as being the most corrupt state for its size.  As far as laws go, you're gonna find stupid laws aren't just in California.  In Louisiana, a cop can't pull you over just cuz yur not wearing a seatbelt...Some things are taxed, while others aren't...You can drive with open alcohol as long as yur not drinking it.  Stupid laws abound throughout the states.  Oh if you've ever been in a deul, you can't be governor of Pennsylvania.    I'm not gonna go pointing fingers saying such and such a state is the worst state.  There are definitely some states that are worse than others, but no state is perfect...far from it.  Each state has corruption, each state has crazy fools.  I'm fully aware of how crazy some people in my state are, especially being a conservative living in a liberal state.    Oh well...I live in the most conservative county in California, so I'm good.

[Patback399]

You can't be elected to public office in some states if you don't believe in a supreme being. Now, that's just ridiculous.

[Scilla]

How? If America is a majority Christian country, they want Christian leaders. It makes sense.

[Elizabeth Rose]

You can't be elected to public office in some states if you don't believe in a supreme being. Now, that's just ridiculous.

They wouldn't get the vote anyway.

[Dragon Of Grief]

I think American needs to be religionless... well, not religionless. Just without an official religion since we are such a diverse country. Politics should become seperate from the hold of the Church. I think it is ludicruous that one would assume that someone who is not Christian would make a bad leader.

[Patback399]

How? If America is a majority Christian country, they want Christian leaders. It makes sense.

No, it doesn't make sense at all. You are restricting someone to be elected, not because of their race, sex or sexual orientation, but what they think. That's called thoughtcrime.

Besides, a person's religion should not affect what they do in office.

[Scilla]

How? If America is a majority Christian country, they want Christian leaders. It makes sense.

No, it doesn't make sense at all. You are restricting someone to be elected, not because of their race, sex or sexual orientation, but what they think. That's called thoughtcrime.

Besides, a person's religion should not affect what they do in office.

Do you honestly think that people would believe that? Not even I do.

[Patback399]

How? If America is a majority Christian country, they want Christian leaders. It makes sense.

No, it doesn't make sense at all. You are restricting someone to be elected, not because of their race, sex or sexual orientation, but what they think. That's called thoughtcrime.

Besides, a person's religion should not affect what they do in office.

Do you honestly think that people would believe that? Not even I do.

I know people will always be affected by religion, but it really should have little (I won't say "nothing" because part of religion is morality.) affect on what's done in office.

And it's not like atheists are going to make reading of Charles Darwin books mandatory.

[J.R.]

Any person with faith-based morals is going to be affected by them when making ethical decisions...That's just a fact.

[Patback399]

Any person with faith-based morals is going to be affected by them when making ethical decisions...That's just a fact.

I can understand that completely, they should.

[Rocko]

How? If America is a majority Christian country, they want Christian leaders. It makes sense.

No, it doesn't make sense at all. You are restricting someone to be elected, not because of their race, sex or sexual orientation, but what they think. That's called thoughtcrime.

Besides, a person's religion should not affect what they do in office.

I guess the act of voting is a "thoughtcrime".

[Patback399]

How? If America is a majority Christian country, they want Christian leaders. It makes sense.

No, it doesn't make sense at all. You are restricting someone to be elected, not because of their race, sex or sexual orientation, but what they think. That's called thoughtcrime.

Besides, a person's religion should not affect what they do in office.

I guess the act of voting is a "thoughtcrime".

If it were illegal, sure.

[VulturEMaN]

How? If America is a majority Christian country, they want Christian leaders. It makes sense.

No, it doesn't make sense at all. You are restricting someone to be elected, not because of their race, sex or sexual orientation, but what they think. That's called thoughtcrime.

Besides, a person's religion should not affect what they do in office.

k guys you're turning this into America when the original discussion was about how some states don't allow it...

As far as states go, alot of states were formed under religious men who wanted the ideals of that particular religion to permeate throughout their newly formed state. NOT to force another religion onto someone, but to force some sort of ideal set onto atleast it's leaders. Because, believe it or not, most founders thought the common American to be dumb as rocks (and most of us still are). They couldn't look ahead into the future to our current voting system. They just wanted someone with some decent ideals up there in office.

This may change in the future, but don't count on it happening soon.

[Dragon Of Grief]

See, I look at it this way... Christians make up about 79% of the population... but compare it to 16 years ago when they made up 88% of the population, with Catholics representing the majority in about 25% of the US population. This drop in Christianity suggests possibly these two things.

• People are dropping from the Christian religion.
• People of different religions are outgrowing Christianity.

I am going to say it is a mixture of the two...

The number of Atheists grew from 8.4% in 1990 to nearly 15% in 2001. This is a 6.6% jump in the Atheistic populace.

However, a growth rate of 1.7% has grown for all other religion while Christianity has fallen down by 8.5%.

You be the judge... but with the falling rate of Christians in the US and the growth of other US religion suggests that having a Christian nation with Christian policies just won't cut it anymore. That was all fine and dandy 50 years ago when the Christian population was nearly 100% but times are changing. And we need to change to. This is why I believe we can no longer declare the US as a Christian nation. The US should not have an official religion. It could actually be considered almost dangerous. If the growing trends continue as they are in another 40 or 50 years Christians will account for less then half of the US population. And then when the majority is Non-Christian it would be impossible for the US to stay a "theocracy" and we would have no choice but to declare the US as religion free. And by religion free I don't mean banning religion. That would be a violation of human rights. I mean recognizing the US as a diverse country... such a diverse country that we have no official religion. This shows that we respect all religion equally and will make us look good. And who knows. Maybe the rest of the world will follow the example =)

BTW if anyone wants a source for where I got my info... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religious_affiliation