A Peaceful and Amicable Request to the President About Religion and the Citizenry

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: WarminIndy

May I respectfully remind you, Honorable Sir, that the Declaration of Independence does not imply separation of church and state, therefore, the populace cannot extricate itself from its duty to guarantee religious freedom or freedom from religion for the populace.

Because the Declaration of Independence isn't the supreme law of the United States, the Constitution is.

As we have a plethora of religious world views abiding for the most part peacefully in this nation, then some attempt should be made for the allowance of those desiring no religion to be allowed to move away. I am not asking that you deport them or expel them, just allow them to diplomatically leave and enter into nations that have no religions.

Why should atheists, agnostics, the non-religious, etc. have to leave the United States? A separation of church and state is inherent in the intent and function of the First Amendment and Article VI explicitly allows for atheists, agnostics, the non-religious, etc. to hold public office.

But, Honorable Sir, there are those who by conscience choose to live without religion, but the demands of forcing all religion from this nation so far has not led to any major conflicts, has caused young people to not only question their own rights and privileges in this nation, but those of others.

In what way are atheists, agnostics, the non-religious, etc. "forcing all religion from this nation"? Churches still stand. You are free to worship in the manner you choose. They're just asking that the government not show preference to one religion over another, or to religion over a lack of religion.

Your sense of entitlement resulting from being in the majority is laughable.

Without the Declaration, there would be no Constitution.

Think about that one.

Exactly what I said, no preference to what religion. But there are many who feel cheated in this country because there are religious people, sorry, but if they don't like religion, then they can go where there is no religion.

That's all I am saying.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The Republicans might agree with your idea.



But I'm under the impression that the heathens Godless ... Er non-believers would not be voting Republican & I assumed this was directed towards the current Democrat admin...

Having read your post above, I can see it isn't.

Even so, as many Reps that would probably want this, there is probably just many that would consider it shooting themselves in the foot, even if they harboured some sort of feeling to agree.


As for all round candidates, we have a similar problem here in the U.K...
1st World problems I guess

a reply to: WarminIndy


"I therefore propose to you that at this course of human events, there must be a permissible and allowable separation of those in this nation to be allowed to peacefully and amicably leave, without recrimination and without being called traitors, with the full understanding that if they choose eventually to come back to this nation, they are permitted so."

I'm quite sure that Americans are allowed to move away from the US, but realize that you'll still have to pay US taxes unless you give up your citizenship.
As far as people calling others traitors for moving elsewhere, that's just weird.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
I'm not going to get in depth on this, so wikipedia will do.

Expatriation Act of 1868

I would suggest to do research into any particular subject first.

Except in nations we have no diplomatic ties with. For instance, North Korea.

During WWII, Americans were not allowed to go to Hungary or Romania, because we were at war with them. As I said, North Korea does not have religion, but we can't exactly just go there.

I say dissolve all bans from those nations and allow those who wish to go, go. That is all.

But please, notice that I am NOT saying they all MUST go, just allow those who want to go, go. But some people are defensive of their freedom, they changed direction and wanted to make sure they could still enjoy their freedom here. So, they are really happy here, they just like to complain a lot.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: WarminIndy

The Republicans might agree with your idea.



But I'm under the impression that the heathens Godless

... Er non-believers would not be voting Republican & I assumed this was directed towards the current Democrat admin...

Having read your post above, I can see it isn't.

Even so, as many Reps that would probably want this, there is probably just many that would consider it shooting themselves in the foot, even if they harboured some sort of feeling to agree.


As for all round candidates, we have a similar problem here in the U.K...
1st World problems I guess

Psst, I'm not a Republican or Democrat, I am a middle roader.

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: WarminIndy


"I therefore propose to you that at this course of human events, there must be a permissible and allowable separation of those in this nation to be allowed to peacefully and amicably leave, without recrimination and without being called traitors, with the full understanding that if they choose eventually to come back to this nation, they are permitted so."

I'm quite sure that Americans are allowed to move away from the US, but realize that you'll still have to pay US taxes unless you give up your citizenship.
As far as people calling others traitors for moving elsewhere, that's just weird.

See, here's what I think, if you move away, then you pay taxes in the country you want to be in. No taxes paid back to the United States. That is something I think is unfair.

If they want to go, go. Holding them to taxes is forcing them to remain loyal.

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...does that count, or should I order a passport?

Are you actually publicly stating people should leave this country that don't believe in an imaginary sky fairy and a magical book written by man?
...While trying to be pc and saying no, I'm saying they should be allowed to?

Why is your definition of values even remotely related to religion?

Religion has and always will be imaginary in my eyes.

Can you paraphrase your goal here?

a reply to: WarminIndy

You lost me at "honerable sir". There is little honorable about what Obama has, is, and will continue to do to this country. I vote for a dihonerable discharge of this so called "honorable sir". He can take the other socialist he ha appointed with him.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...does that count, or should I order a passport?

Are you actually publicly stating people should leave this country that don't believe in an imaginary sky fairy and a magical book written by man?
...While trying to be pc and saying no, I'm saying they should be allowed to?

Why is your definition of values even remotely related to religion?

Religion has and always will be imaginary in my eyes.

Can you paraphrase your goal here?

Do you want to go where the Flying Spaghetti Monster is venerated?

You can believe it if you want, it is part of the plethora of religious views, even if it is not serious. (You aren't serious, are you?)

So you want to stay, good. Now, can you be happy for the rest of us? Festivus for the rest of us.

originally posted by: sirlancelot
a reply to: WarminIndy

You lost me at "honerable sir". There is little honorable about what Obama has, is, and will continue to do to this country. I vote for a dihonerable discharge of this so called "honorable sir". He can take the other socialist he ha appointed with him.

Except I didn't say Obama.

But if you are writing to the President, you have to use those flourishing titles, it shows etiquette. And it might just get you listened to more quickly.

It's just good manners, because I am addressing the Office, not the individual.

Why can't you worship whom you wish, in your home or your church and leave the rest of us alone? That is freedom.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes, it was sarcasm.

What is the point of your letter?

All I am asking for is a direct answer.

The Seinfeld line is funny, but what are you after?

Generally people are allowed to leave the country...I see you turning it into a tax issue now?

You have lost me. Try and and paraphrase your point/goal for me, if you would.

originally posted by: MOMof3
Why can't you worship whom you wish, in your home or your church and leave the rest of us alone? That is freedom.

Yes, I agree. Did I say I didn't agree?

Listen, this is for those who spend their time complaining about how bad they have it here. You want your rights recognized, then recognize the rights of others, simple and fair.

But people are complaining so much about religion, I just thought they might be happier where there is no religion, so I made a proposal to address their complaints.

But I see you are happy, so then you aren't complaining?

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes, it was sarcasm.

What is the point of your letter?

All I am asking for is a direct answer.

The Seinfeld line is funny, but what are you after?

Generally people are allowed to leave the country...I see you turning it into a tax issue now?

You have lost me. Try and and paraphrase your point/goal for me, if you would.

Please, the tax statement was in response to one comment.

The point is this, if people want to enjoy life in a country of no religion, then go to where there is no religion, because in this country, religion is a fundamental right and won't be taken away.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Perhaps you would like to book passage to a country where's there a theocracy. Those exist. I'm unaware of any country where there is no religion. Would you care to provide a list?

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: WarminIndy

Perhaps you would like to book passage to a country where's there a theocracy. Those exist. I'm unaware of any country where there is no religion. Would you care to provide a list?

North Korea.

Why would I go to a theocracy, if I am defending the rights here?

After all, I did invoke the Declaration. We could nullify that, go back to England and King George and be the Church of England all over again, if that is ok with you.

Nepal is also now secular. Perhaps some might like the trip to Khatmandu?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes, it was sarcasm.

What is the point of your letter?

All I am asking for is a direct answer.

The Seinfeld line is funny, but what are you after?

Generally people are allowed to leave the country...I see you turning it into a tax issue now?

You have lost me. Try and and paraphrase your point/goal for me, if you would.

Please, the tax statement was in response to one comment.

The point is this, if people want to enjoy life in a country of no religion, then go to where there is no religion, because in this country, religion is a fundamental right and won't be taken away.

Yikes...
Religion is as much a right as not being forced into it is.

How would you like it if I said..."Religions need to leave the country and go to the countries that are tearing themselves apart before it happens here?"
You can't have your cake and eat it too with freedom. Everyone gets their say.
You are putting your opinions/beliefs before man and their homes, that is a dangerous position, just look at the history of religion. Your position aligns perfectly with this issue.

Your whining about someone else's opinion of religion and claiming they should leave their country for their opinion of religion.

Convert or leave? Agree or leave? Opinions will get responses and this one is borderline crusade worthy.

I'm done wasting my time on this thread, try a little tolerance for man and others opinions.

originally posted by: Mandroid7

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes, it was sarcasm.

What is the point of your letter?

All I am asking for is a direct answer.

The Seinfeld line is funny, but what are you after?

Generally people are allowed to leave the country...I see you turning it into a tax issue now?

You have lost me. Try and and paraphrase your point/goal for me, if you would.

Please, the tax statement was in response to one comment.

The point is this, if people want to enjoy life in a country of no religion, then go to where there is no religion, because in this country, religion is a fundamental right and won't be taken away.

Yikes...
Religion is as much a right as not being forced into it is.

How would you like it if I said..."Religions need to leave the country and go to the countries that are tearing themselves apart before it happens here?"
You can't have your cake and eat it too with freedom. Everyone gets their say.
You are putting your opinions/beliefs before man and their homes, that is a dangerous position, just look at the history of religion. Your position aligns perfectly with this issue.

Your whining about someone else's opinion of religion and claiming they should leave their country for their opinion of religion.

Convert or leave? Agree or leave? Opinions will get responses and this one is borderline crusade worthy.

I'm done wasting my time on this thread, try a little tolerance for man and others opinions.

Point to where I said convert.

Do you even understand the thread? I said, because religion is a fundamental right, and this country will never abandon that fundamental right, then those who wish to live where there is no religion should permitted to go where there is no religion.

I see you are exercising your right to disagree. You can only exercise that right here, so count it as a blessing. If you were in another country, you might be told to shut up.

But since you are so fiercely defensive about freedom, then I suppose you don't have it so bad. Now do you see the point? You were deeply offended, as I mentioned in the post script.

Either get the sarcasm or don't be so intolerably insufferable against the rights you do have. Did I mention anywhere for anyone to convert? Nope, you are so privileged and comfortable in your position, you failed to see that I made no such request.

Fascinating ideas, not practical, won't happen, but interesting.

Did you know that there is s small movement to create a new nation like Israel, except for Christians. One where Christians can live in peace and live under a Christian theocracy if they so choose.

I'm sure many of you will have a total fit about the possibility. Interestingly it is most likely to be Christian "haters" who will squawk the loudest. I don't know how I feel about it, but one thing I am certain of. If it happens, the nation will be hated on and persecuted as a nation like Israel is. Why? because many atheists so hate Christians that the thought of a Christian theocracy is too much for them to even conceive of allowing to exist in the world.

The reason it is being discussed is because of the horrific persecution of Christians in the Middle East and in many Indonesian and African countries. Our president has openly said the US is not a Christian nation and so persecuted Christians around the world can't expect sanctuary or hope of freedom from persecution from the US.
So where can these Christians go for sanctuary unless a fully Christian theocratic nation is created for them?

Christian "haters", do not deny the deeply dangerous situation for Christians in the Middle East and other predominately Muslim countries, along with the dogmatic communist and faux communist dictatorships around the world.

One would think that a nation created specifically for Christians would make the "haters" happy and be glad to be rid of the Christians in their midst. But that is most likely not going to be the reaction when this tiny movement goes public.

So the OP is interesting in that the exact opposite is being quietly proposed "behind the scenes".

originally posted by: sirlancelot
a reply to: WarminIndy

You lost me at "honerable sir". There is little honorable about what Obama has, is, and will continue to do to this country. I vote for a dihonerable discharge of this so called "honorable sir". He can take the other socialist he ha appointed with him.

You pay respect to the office not the man. Just like in the military you salute the rank not the officer.