I meant within the context of misuse, but that's not what I wrote, so nice play.

Religion has been in day-to-day government activities since our country was founded, so how can it be that those activities are in violation of the separation of church and state if the very people who founded the country endorsed them? Did their actions not convey their intent?

First off, I apologize for the tool remark. It's unfounded. The remark about fundamentalism isn't unfounded, but it is harsh, so I rescind that if you will. That being said, what I said about Christianity is true.

When you quoted Matt 7:1, you were taking the verse out-of-context. This means that only part of the meaning is there. Matt 7:2 clarifies the meaning of Matt 7:1 by providing the context. Rather than Matt 7:1 referring to all judgment, Matt 7:2 provides the context which changes the meaning to the manner of judgment, in other words, the way the judgment was conducted. Was it just? Was it honest? Or was it deceitful?

The book of Genesis says that God created them male and female. It also prescribes the purpose for man and woman before sin corrupted the world. God did not intend for homosexual relations. Such only came into existence after sin. You can ignore the verses in the Bible that prohibit homosexual acts, but the purpose in Genesis is laid out clear.

Christianity is not all about acceptance and loving one another. Did you forget the reason Jesus sacrificed himself in the first place? Jesus even told a woman to "go and sin no more." Christians should have no interest in endorsing sin which is why I strongly object to your original post. By focusing entirely on "acceptance" and "loving one another" people tend to forget or misconstrue that encouraging someone to not engage in sinful behavior is a sign of neighborly love. (Though it doesn't seem that way if it's said in a harsh manner.)

Jesus would care for the downtrodden, the homosexuals, adulterers, etc. However, I find it difficult to believe that he would endorse their sin as you seem to suggest. Take something clear-cut in the Bible like adultery: Would Jesus help/endorse a man cheating on his wife?

It boils down to love the sinner but hate the sin. God has said that he hates sin, so should a Christian do likewise?

For clarification: What does accepting someone the way they are entail? Does doing so amount to justifying whatever sin that person has engaged in? I ask because a Christian should have no interest in endorsing sin.

The golden rule isn't the only rule, but I'll admit: I'm far too harsh and have surpassed justification for the "tool" remark. For me, that has gone down the drain from having to deal with extremely uncivil people elsewhere, but is no excuse.

I wouldn't know what they are teaching in churches these days. I don't attend.

That tends to be the trend in discussion unless the topic is strictly adhered to. The drift is clearly evident. :)

They understood community and how centralized power is an ineffective means of government. Thus, a government based on individual and communal freedom was created. So, yes, by that, others who are different have the same rights.

My list is relevant to: "Many freedoms have been lost in the name of fairness and equality." Affirmative action imposes on others and thus affects their freedoms. Hate crimes are similar to a secondary offense. You can think about killing a minority all day long, but once you do it, you get punished for murder and for thinking about killing that minority. My point: I am providing evidence that many freedoms have been lost in the name of fairness and equality.

When I talk about non-existent rights. I truly mean non-existent rights. One such would be: The right to happiness, *not* the right to pursue happiness.

Have I said or supported things which bring government regulation into the bedroom?

Nothing, and I never said it had anything to do with equal treatment of individuals in public schools.

The only ones I know of that come close are freedom of speech and expression. Both of which schools are allowed to regulate to an extent. I'm just not seeing how this policy violates anyone's rights and no one cares to declare which rights are being violated.

The crap that regulates freedom and thus increases the power of the government needs to go. I am not referring to what is described in the founding documents which form the basis of this country. I am referring to social regulation, as I mentioned: employment anti-discrimination. This removes freedom from business owners to hire whomever they choose, and is part of what I consider the "leftist push..."

This country was founded upon the ideals of freedom, including the freedom to succeed or fail. The people who impose social regulation are in direct conflict with those freedoms, so I stand by my statement. Fair isn't free.

Affirmative action, hate crime laws, anti-discrimination legislation, the fairness doctrine, and equal work for equal pay. All of those regulate freedoms in the name of fairness.

Those open minds and free-thinkers have certainly made America what it is today: a steaming pile of corrupt Federal Government with way too much power, bankrupt from social safety nets and a bunch of nutcases screaming about non-existent rights.

You know what a free-thinker is? An idiot who doesn't know how to use an authoritative dictionary.

It's funny that those very people who stood up against religious tyranny were religious themselves.