The Station

it is sort of like teasing. example, you pick on a person to get a reaction you want. they react how you want, so you pick on them more to get more of the reaction. if we stopped reacting like how they want, then maybe they will get bored of not being noticed and stop causeing the catastrophic disasters that they feel stimulates the wanted reaction.

first off, i think the government itself should become a faith-based organization. as long as that faith is christianity. i've had it up to here with all this separation of church and state garbage. let anyone who has a problem with this move back to their shitty countries. and the whiney liberals can cry all they want, but they 're gonna have to live a lot more morally

now, back to your big point. i agree, much of this security stuff is knee-jerk, and anytime a mass transit system or the airline system or anything is attacked, there's going to be people who demand immediate changes and upgrades in security. and it's obvious that we're never going to be one hundred percent secure one hundred percent of the time. however, the government should be doing what it can to make the public safer. there's times where specific measures may be overkill, but terrorists and even common criminals are becoming more sophisticated as culture and technology become more sophisticated. the government has the responsibility to keep up as best as it can. if a vulnerability is exposed it needs to be corrected, and other vulnerabilities should be investigated. security will certainly be more intrusive upon our every day lives, but the terrorists have no shame. neither does the average thug nowadays. no road is too low. they will stoop as low as necessary. and we need to safeguard against this

no matter how much you safe gaurd, they will still break through. after one attack, it suddenly became a HUGE deal for our safety. it became aware to people that we were unsafe from the start. is awareness a good thing? it seems to cause unneeded hysteria and as a result, even the smallest of matters require severe crucial attention.

secondly, church and state should stay seperated. though i am christian, it doesnt mean that i completly agree with it, when in fact i disagree with most of the faith. furthermore, by declaring a faithbased government, it will not help civilization. now i do understand that so many advances in science and technology really are detrimental and hurt civilization, but at the same time most all advances would not have happened if there was a faithbased government. the thought of creating a weapon that kills people would not have occured, the advances of trying to act like God and create our own species and perfect them to our own views would not be a possibilities, or even the concept of stem cells be taboo in a faithbased society. also, it would not be possible for one contry to have a faithbased government when all others are not. it would just cause a huge collapse of power and a reserection to a state that was before faith ruled some people.

i see on a daily basis what the changes of just 75 years of technology have made. the changes in lifestyles, ways of living, and thought that it has changed too. just 75 years ago, you never really heard of an overwight person because they did work by hand. 75 years ago you were not really afraid of salmonella or other bacterias because they were daily encounters. these advances in technology have worsen society, and with a faith based government, they would not have happend in most views(note the amish...a more or less faith based society). the major point is that a faith based government would prevent all the good and helpful outcomes from advances in technology. just recently they have produced a vaccine that will prevent about 95% of cervical cancer cases. these are good things for society, and these are the benifits of a state government. so under no circumstances should there be an abolishment to the seperation of church and state. and any blending that is currently going on should be reversed. it is just not right or fair to humanity in the long run.

Dear Anonymous Commenter,

First, don't ever comment anonymously. It shows you're either too lazy to type your name or you're a coward.

Second, you cannot at the same time claim to be a Christian and state that you disagree with most aspects of the faith. Learn the truth about Jesus and then get on one side of the fence or the other.

Third, I never requested our government be faith-based. That is just plain stupid. A Christian nation would be hypocritical since there would be no one to evangelize. Jesus instructed us to teach others about him. How can we obey that command in a country where everyone already knows him? We can't. That's why there are not and will not be Christian nations.

Finally, why do you think that if Christians did run a country it would return to a pre-industrialized society? There are just as many brilliant Christian engineers, scientists, doctors, and financial analysts as non-believing ones. Also, you are seriously misguided about faith restricting the abilities of these people to make progress in their fields.

Christians are ordinary people who have accepted an extraordinary gift from God. Their relationship with God does not limit their actions, it makes their abilities limitless! I’d be glad to discuss this further if you’d like.

In the meantime, put your name on your work. Else I will delete it and ban your IP.

Wow, I can't believe that I typed "here me out on this." Of course, it should be "hear," not "here." Must have been tired...

You'd make a good teacher...

"In the meantime, put your name on your work. Else I will delete it and ban your IP."

Maybe i should take lessons!

I could have threatened to put their name on the blackboard, but they didn't leave their name!

Remember what a big deal it was to have the teacher write your name on the board? If only discipline was that easy with adults!

saying a christian-based country wouldn't work because there'd be no one left to evangelize is absurdly ridiculous. did Jesus say to make disciples of all nations? dude, let's say everyone in the world did eventually accept Jesus because of the works of preachers and missionaries. should we make sure there's a few select groups we not target so we can target them in the future?

No, I'm not saying to stop short of converting everyone so as to always have a target. I'm saying that instead of all the Christians getting together in one place (a Christian nation) they should remain dispersed throughout the world so that everyone might know Jesus.

Brian is the dumb

I am "the dumb?" What does that mean? I see your name is "All Rational Beings," but I don't see how your statement is rational. How many rational beings are you, anyway? Certainly not engough to create a grammatically correct statement.

Well, you rational beings go on about your business, just leave us normal humans alone. We don't want your rational grammar influencing us, especially our childeren. So don't plan on becoming a teacher. Especially a teacher of biology at Joliet high school.

Just because it's from my server doesn't mean i left the comment...Cough...Andy!

=(

Haha! I should have known.