ruger9

I said religion was repressed under Communism. It was. TRUE. I said that communism is a religion-less governmental form. It is. TRUE. The founder and primary theorist of Marxism, the nineteenth century German sociologist Karl Marx, had an ambivalent attitude to religion, viewing it primarily as "the opium of the people" that had been used by the ruling classes to give the working classes false hope for millennia, while at the same time recognizing it as a form of protest by the working classes against their poor economic conditions.[1] In the end, Marx rejects religion.[2] In the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as negative to human development, and socialist states that follow a Marxist-Leninist variant are atheistic and explicitly antireligious. Due to this, a number of Marxist-Leninst governments in the twentieth century, such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, implemented rules introducing state atheism. However, several religious communist groups exist, and Christian communism was important in the early development of communism.

Bloody brilliant.

Really? So, the Soviet constitution (or whatever they called it) allowed for the free practice or religion, but in reality it was repressed? I don't know about you, but the truth of history and what ACTUALLY happened, not what was SUPPOSED to happen, is what matters. That's the argument the antis are using against us right now: "you aren't losing 2A, you can still have guns" "banning semi-autos and hi-cap mags in no way infringes your 2A right; we aren't changing to constitution"... it doesnt matter what 2A says unless it's adhered to. In reality, our 2A rights have begun to be infringed since 1837. WE pay attention to what's on the paper- but that doesn't make it REALITY. REALITY is what matters.

Correct- America has no establishment of religion. But what we DO have (or USED to have) that Soviet Russia did not (officially, anyway): the FREE EXERCISE OF religion. But the liberals and atheists are working on it, no worries. Just a matter of time. Also- don't mistake my refusal to "vocally stand down" on my beliefs of God's role in the creation and founding of this country with trying to "convert" anyone- I am practicing the free exercise of my beliefs. On that, the atheists, and the Christians who agree with them on this thread, can kiss my grits.

You incorrectly mistake my opinion on what would make things better, for my (incorrectly assumed on your part) want to change people, of which I have none. People do what they please and make up their own minds on such issues. Altho, let's not get into the whole "morality" issue... "laws aren't based on religious morals", etc... because we'll be here all night. As I have said, the founders made no secret what role they believed God/creator/whatever NEEDED to play in the American experiment for it to work.

Just because there are alot of old churches in Bucharest proves absolutely zilch on the subject of the government co-opting a religion, or even banning the practice of religion. So they didn't raze the buildings. So? Where Nazi Germany co-opted the religion and used it for it's own evil gains (much like what is happening to Islam right now), Communist Russia repressed religion and the practice thereof... athesim was the official doctrine of the Soviet Union... The history of Christianity in the Soviet Union was not limited to repression and secularization. Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religion.[1] The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[4] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognised its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war. http://en.wikipedia....he_Soviet_Union So, they tried to eradicate religion. In the end they failed. But they did try, and it was the official doctrine of communism.

Proof please? Is CCW all you got? You're answer is wrong. Makes no difference to me that you are wrong. But that's your ignorance, at least of MY position. I have no desire to convert anyone to anything. But I DO want to be left alone, as I leave others alone. How many times do I have to say it: INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

Easy... take away their guns. They'll wake up. Unfortunately, by then it'll be too late (just ask the european jews from WWII)

Nick, Totally agree on the "generational war" thing. I just think we need to turn future generations TOWARD God (or whatever) rather than even further away from it. The slow dismemberment of religion in this country is a very large part of the current problemS, imo... but that's another thread entirely. Also agree with the "need a strong decisive win"... imo, you aren't going to get that with a moderate platform, ever. Again, all this is opinion, of course- and civil discourse on these matters is how we ended up with our charters of liberty in the first place. On a side note, I do want to say that I'm sick and tired of what I see as atheist intolerance. I am a Christian. I am tolerant of atheists beliefs. Why will they not be tolerant of mine? If atheists wanted to erect a "nothingness scene" on public property to not celebrate the "nothingness" of the time of year many of us call Christmas, I'm fine with that. I wouldnt petition the govt for forceable removal of an atheist "christmas" scene. And ditto to schools as well.... I have done enough research on many of the founders and their intent to know that the so-called "seperation of church and state" (which does not exist in the US Constitution, this was taken from the VA Constitution), was never intended to scrub all religion from all things public and governmental. On the contrary, you can find many citations where the founders were not only religious (in one way or another) themselves, but also thought a government w/o religious morals and principles would be doomed to failure. That does not mean forcing anyone to pray, or be of any religion, just that the surgical removal of all religion would be a bad idea. As a matter of fact, the removal of all religion from all things public and governmental is called... communism.

But don't you see...(Nick) you (and so others) are doing exactly the same thing with your opinion of "YOU should do it MY way, or we are going to lose." You are being absolutist in your strategy. It's similar to the way the GOP has been going center the last 10 years especially- hasn't done them much good, has it? They has spent an awful lot of money and time trying to "win the middle", when all they have done is lose their base and water down their values. What is now considered the "right" isn't- it has moved towards the middle. What is considered the "middle" leans liberal, and liberalism is just socialism in sheep's clothing at this point. I will not be a part of further watering down of conservative beliefs and principles. I am a true conservative, I'm proud of it, and I won't pretend to be a moderate, as I think that has been part of this problem all along. But- all these differing political ideas, and differing opinions on which way we should go- it's the stuff a country was founded on. I consider myself a Jeffersonian Republican- which in very little way resembles the republican party of today.

For the record, I'm not "fighting" with anyone- I am using my 1st amendment right of free speech and freedom of religion. I'M not the one doing the complaining. I'm the one saying "do what you will, and let me do as I will". And I state again- I will not change they way I speak (allow my 1st amendment right to be infringed) because someone else doesn't like it. Last time I looked, this was still America... if only barely. And this "great middle" people seem to be referencing, imo, is NOT what we need to ascribe or cow-tow to. But again- that's AMERICA. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. You think the founders didn't have "fights" MUCH worse than these while drafting the founding documents? And look what they accomplished. Despite popular belief, it wasn't about all of them agreeing or being on the same page- is was about setting up a form of government where the individual people could be on any page they want. It was to restrict the infringement of individual liberty. IMO, the people saying "stop talking about God" are the same people who thought running McCain because he could "reach across the isle" was a GOOD idea. The right has run two moderate candidates, and lost twice. Perhaps we should actually return to the roots of conservatism, stick to our guns, and run a CONSERVATIVE candidate next time, one that ISN'T afraid to invoke God. Or at the very least freedom OF religion... instead of running away from from it. There is no "absolutism" going on here- I simply am going to say what I want to say. And I encourage others to do the same. Individual liberty. The only "absolutism" I see are from those trying to coerce others to "take God out of it". I will not be coerced to "soften" my position with regards to God and country. And for those of you who think I am "why we will lose the battle", I say- RIGHT BACK AT YOU.

If you're a Muslim, sure. Tree given right? If you're a druid, sure. Alien given right? If you're scientologist, sure. Nothingness given right? If you're an atheist, sure. That's the point: freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it.

You call it what you want, I'll call it what I want. You'll think I'm not "helping the cause", and I'll think your some kind of atheist with a so-called "separation of church and state" hang-up. We'll be even. My creator is God. I don't know and don't care who your creator is, because it's irrelevant. As is who *I* think the creator is. FREEDOM OF RELIGION (note it's not freedom FROM religion) allows us both to hold our own beliefs and speak our own minds. Anyone who is "turned off" by my invoking God IS close-minded. I have no problem with anyone saying "earth-given, nature-given, universe-given, etc..." right, therefore no one should have a problem with me saying GOD given right. And if they do, it's THEIR problem.

That's a big affirmative on prey drive... We're having a fence installed right now for that very reason.

You've been fed misinformation. They do NOT need alot of exercise; they are not hyper dogs. On the contrary, they are very mellow, laid-back dogs. They call them "45mph couch potatoes", and that's exactly right. While they are runners, they are SPRINTERS- they don't need alot of wide open space and physical activity a husky or ridgeback would.

lol... you know how many times people have said that? lol

No one (except those of us who actually read and study the founders/founding/founding documents) knows what inalienable even means, thanks to the public school system. And frankly, it's not my job to "convince" anyone. The truth is there. I'm done suffering people's willful ignorance. And I sure as hell am not going to change the way I speak to convince those who have chosen to remain ignorant. And on that note- anyone who is TRULY "on the fence" on this issue, who is SUPPOSEDLY "open-minded", would object not one whit to THE TRUTH. If they do, or are "turned off" by the use of the word "God", not only are they NOT open-minded, but remaining willfully ignorant. And that goes for anyone on this forum as well. I'm sick and tired of religion being the only thing attacked more than 2A.

Am I the only greyhound? Indy:

Truth is truth- if you don't like it, or the politicians don't like it, or the anti-gunners don't like it, it's tough shite and based on ignorance. The truth, with regards to the founders, God, and how they viewed Him and referenced Him in our founding documents, is there for the finding. I for one am done playing "politically-correct games" and as mipafox says, "walking on eggshells around communists." Done. Done playing THEIR game THEIR way. Whatever it comes down to in the end, it comes down to. But I'm done.

Powerful stuff.

Thank you for your extremely well-written thoughts. They are some of the most poignant I have read on the issue.

Thanks. I'm in.

Can you direct us to the cache? I'd really like to read this.

So it's all really going to come down to Christie. Can't say I'm optimistic. I pay attention to local and state politics, vote for the right people, freeze my ass off in trenton, burn up the phone and email lines, for this? No more. As I have previously said, this course of action has obviously become ineffective in THIS state. Someone hit the nail on the head when they said these people think they are RULERS instead of Representatives.

Anyone know what the makeup of the senate is? Do any of these bills stand a chance at NOT passing there?