Why don't Americans have Evangelicals shut up?

[hopperboo]

So since it is against religion it should be against the law? Prohibited for everyone? So if someone is religious ergo he must be be intolerant of everyone else's choice and right to live their life as they see fit? And who gets to decide which religion is the religion?

You are welcome to McCain, but I don't want him for president of my country. In that case, kindly pack up your troops home and excuse yourself from meddling into matters of other nations. You have to deal with him (your president) on daily basis?...So do we! Everyday I have to live with the consequences of his actions.

No, I didn't say things that were against religion should be against the law. I said I don't have to (nor does a country) have respect for it. Again, that is just my personal opinion. Many people believe those who are not tolerant and respectful of every lifestyle are close-minded and bad, when I don't see it that way at all. People form opinions of what is right based on religion and their own beliefs and upbringing. How respectful is it to throw everything one believes in away because someone might get some feelings hurt? Forming and opinion and backing up that opinion isn't close-minded. It's a choice. Sitting on the fence, hurling insults at people who dare to form an opinion is not respectful either. (That is meant as a general comment, not a personal insult to you).

As for who decides what religion is paramount, the USA was founded on Christian beliefs. Yes, it founded on the right to freedom of religion, but if push comes to shove, it was founded on Christian beliefs.

It became our business when said country has terrorists that attack us. If other countries don't want us interfering they should get their own extremists groups under control.

[craven]

hmmmmm i really did not want to respond any more to this thread as i though it had run its cause, but i do feel the need to reply to the last paragraph of the past post.


I would ask which country established, equipped and funded the young Osama Bin Laden's now labeled terror movement, answer yes the US, to fight the soviets i appreciate however Afghanistan a pretty much lawless nation did not expel al Qaeda, but then in reality what ability the Afghan taliban government actually had to so so is questionable given that to date the combined powers of many Western nations have also been unable to oust this US funded terror movement.

Also Iraq, again a US established military led dictatorship, Saddam Hussein being a proven CIA operative.

I do not condone either movement, but please do not state that once the terror is brought to US shores then the US administration has a god given right to execute regime change or attack sovereign nations.

Lets be honest amongst ourselves here it was always the US's business the moment it established both Osama Bin Ladens movement and empowered Saddam Hussein.

Modern world politics has to have a longer than 4 year shelf life, time and time again we are all seeing and living through the fallout of such short terminsim.

I really dont want to post anymore, i feel that this thread has been done to death, but do please free free to comment or disagree, we all have those wonderful rights.