You want to know what's numero uno on my political agenda? It's religion. Not who has a stronger faith, but why it's even an issue.

The United States government has taken freedom of religion too far with all this political correctness garbage. Evangelical Christians want their religious version of biogenesis taught in public schools; they want to ban gay marriage because the Bible says it's wrong. Fundamental Muslims want the government to fork over extra cash to serve halal meat in public schools; they want revisionist history taught because many deny the Holocaust. Many Jews want to make the swastika illegal to display or demand a separate and sovereign nation for followers.

The following statements should be absolutely inconsequential and totally ignored by politicians:
"The Bible states..."
"Allah forbids..."
"...is not kosher."
"The Lord..."
"God..."

If a politician receives a request containing any of the above, or something similar, the response should be, "What's that?" The Constitution guarantees you the right the believe what you want and practice your beliefs. The lawful interpretation stipulates that your practices must abide by the laws of the land and not breach another's liberties. Last time I checked, the Constitution does not say marriage is between a man and a woman. In fact, I can't think of any document - oh, wait -

Dear Senator John Doe,
The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Signed,
Joe

Dear Joe,
Then maybe you shouldn't marry a man.
Sen. John Doe

Religion has served it's purpose in civilization. It brought civility to a barbarian lack of society and pressed morals upon people, albeit rather forcefully (ya know, the Crusades and all). Notice the semantics of that first statement though: "has served". In the current context, it implies that the action is no longer so; it is not continuing.

Religion has no further purpose in today's world. Humans have gone to war over who has the better imaginary friend. Now, that's not to say that holding a spiritual belief, praying, or accepting Jesus as your savior, et al are bad things. This is not the point of my argument.

The movement against organized religion seems childish at first glance, but hear me out.

The point of my argument is that organized religions like Islam, Christianity (regardless of denomination), and Judaism have brought violence to people because of one simple truth: an organized religion is a government without borders. Unfortunately, in today's world, every government has borders called a "nation" (of course there are some oopsies around). The Vatican has its own budget; its own sovereign territory, its own leaders, and even a system of restricted-dissemination for information they don't want getting out (see: child molestation). Islam even has its own disorganized, yet effective, army. The leadership is goal-oriented and has the world in its sights. Judaism has an internationally recognized sovereign nation that it claims as the holy land for Jews. Thousands upon thousands of people have died fighting for or against a Jewish state. Thousands more are dying for radical Islam's version of the same where Sharia law is above all. And Christians were both persecuted by governments for being heretics (read: they killed Jesus) and had their own hand in destroying opposing beliefs.

Everywhere a radical or fundamental sect of any religion concentrates, it breeds nothing but violence, intolerance, human rights violations, and war. Fundamentalists in all sects have mounted wars against entire nations, or hemispheres in Islam's case, because of their religious beliefs. This is not a Christian nation, nor a Muslim or Jewish for that matter. The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic and does not have provisions for religious law and exceptions to the rule because God said so. I'll respect the cross, the Koran, and not wear Nazi militaria to a synagogue, so leave my Constitution alone; I don't pay income tax to God.

I was recently in a short discussion that led me to this:

First, I want to say that I believe rape is wrong and certainly don't condone the act. However, above the level of being physically assaulted, where does the mental anguish come from? I'm not saying it's fake, but I'm wondering if it's the same feeling that comes from any other traumatic act, if it's specific to sexual acts, or if it's entirely imposed by society.

Now, like I said, I see the physical assault level of this, which could certainly cause mental issues, but rape is considered especially heinous and cruel based on the trauma it causes. Yet, before society was civilized (and in the present in the rest of nature) females were subjected to domination by males in almost every aspect of life. Did society deny nature when it moved away from the concept, or is it an inescapable result of civilization? Once again, I'm not condoning the act; it obviously causes heartache, whatever the reason, but there are many things society demands which are utterly contrary to human nature, so it leads me to wonder.

I recently had a bit of a debate on www.usmessageboard.com. Here's how it goes:

[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by TeachMe
I'd say raise the drinking age. We need things to look forward to after the age of 21. The only other rite of passage in your entire American life will be retirement, and that just makes you feel old. We need to find more ways to give more things to you and let you do more things in between voting and retirement.
[/QUOTE]

[RESPONSE]
I hope you're kidding. Civil liberties is not the right place to start with "for the good of society" judgements. I don't think most 21yr olds are responsible enough to drink, vote, or live on their own. However, the law should not punish everyone for the few.

There is a quote that applies here: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." - Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

This is still fundamentally the basis for American law. Honestly, I think alcohol, as a drug, should not be allowed in public, same with cigarettes and all other drugs/narcotics. However, all of them should be allowed on private property.
[/RESPONSE]

I am harshly liberal when it comes to civil liberties and constitutional rights. I can understand that drinking in public, using cocaine while driving, or smoking around minors or in restaurants violates the liberties of others. I cannot, however, sit back and watch as my rights to do what I please with my own body on my private property are stripped away. I agree with a minimum age for these things, simply because at this age, many are mature enough to know that abuse or overuse can permanently destroy their lives. I also agree, that many 18yr olds are not up to that challenge. However (there are many "however's" in this type of argument), there are many 16yr olds I know that are more mature and able to vote and take care of themselves when compared to plenty of 25yr olds out there. 18 is a happy medium and good compromise. They should not punish the many responsible, legal adults because of the indiscretions of a few. Simply crack down harshly on public drunkeness, or ban public usage all together, but don't touch my private life or private property; this is not an issue of eminent domain.

The worst part of today, is that by tomorrow, it will have become yesterday. The past is the only part of your life you can ever be sure of, so don’t worry about tomorrow; worry about yesterday - tomorrow’s yesterday.

You can derive the following “corollary”, if you will: never live every moment like it’s your last; that’s naive. Instead, live every moment knowing that you’re going to have to remember it, clear as day, for better or worse, for the rest of your life.

This is not realism, cynicism, or overly-analytical; it just is.

You know, it’s interesting. I had always been leaning towards the Republican side, being more conservative with many things, but have never considered myself to be of a particular party. I applaud the Republicans for recognizing what does need to get done in Iraq. We invaded the country, shut down infrastructure and security for the first two years, and now we need to assist in reconstruction and restaging infrastructure. It is the Democrats, however, who have recognized the need for Congress to intervene in budget oversight due to the fraud, waste and abuse. In the most recent meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Democrats blasted White House Budget Director, Jim Nussle, on the misappropriation of funds at home and abroad. What I’ve seen from Democrats on bi-partisan efforts truly impresses me. The Republicans seem to be more concerned with sticking it to the Democrats out of spite for losing control of Congress.

The current division of power provides the best checks and balances I’ve seen. Unfortunately, it also provides a lot of impasse on urgent bills, but at least not without good reason.

I would also like to comment on the professionalism of Jim Nussle. The poor man is running the budget for a Republican administration and taking his financial requests to a Democrat-led Congress and getting berated by each Senator for a menagerie of reasons without lashing back in an angry way. He acknowledges the anger and passion of each Senator. What I don’t care for is how he dances around questions and does not provide a simple answer to the most simple “yes/no” questions.