I personally do not approve of my governmental leader (David Cameron) not because of his policies or actions in power but because I didn't vote for him.

You know what's even stupider? Encouraging more fucking people on an overpopulated planet. Like religion, such facts of the past are moot and need to be explelled from society ASAP.

That would work under the following terms:

- The state recognises all marriage as civil unions and nothing more

- The state abolishes all mention of "marriage" from it's laws

- The state adds to the constitution that all rights and benefits pertaining to a civil union must be to a civil union only. None of this picking and choosing crap.

Even if those three things were implemented, you'll see marriage being reduced to nothing more than a word, which gay couples would still use. So when that happens, will you be pursuing those gay couples who dare utter the word? Where does the line get drawn?

You answered your own question there. The name even explains itself. A meaning the complement, and theism; anti-theism, a REJECTION of all beliefs.

Atheism is more skepticism than a belief. In fact, I know many Atheists who would immediately convert once adequate proof of a deity existed, or became known. This is the same course for most modern states. On a lighter note, I notice a lot of conservatives being climate change skeptics, demanding the government not waste any money on something that isn't proven. You know what that is? Hypocrisy.

And that's why many consider Buddhism to be a philosophy over a religion. The only similarity with religion is the code on which to live by.

Really? You mustn't be looking too hard then. Then again, that's what religious zealots do, stubbornly cling to their beliefs and shut the outside world out.

I'll give you the simple answer. The Earth is part of the remnants of a dead star. Stars expel energy by means of nuclear fusion, creating heavier elements from lighter elements. All light element fuse exothermically (in other words, they expel energy). This is the same case when heavier elements are fissiled (torn apart, which is what happens in modern reactors. This isn't belief so far, it's fact). Both sides reach a point of stabilisation (where an element can neither be fused of fissiled to expel energy) at Iron, the main element that makes up the Earth.

There are plenty of facts and evidence supporting this, and the theories, every day more evidence is found to prove that either those theories indeed happened, or are readjusted to cater for the new data.

Then what do you do when the job description changes? You said it yourself, "The employer should find a job that doesn't require the employee to violate his beliefs". So, why can;t they be relocated to other public sector jobs? And keep in mind that this is not a violation of Freedom of Religion. Freedom of religion gives you the right to practise your faith, not preach it.

While I do not condone the violent acts, saying horrible things and protesting are their rights too, you have to understand that. You cannot have a set of rights to hide behind and think that the other side should have none. That's the superioriority complex of the conservative movement. They think they're born to lead, and they believe they're above everyone else.

Oh the sheer hypocrisy that this sentence comes from a religious zealot.

I'd also like to point out that as of today, conservative nutcase New South Wales premier Barry O'Farrell is one step closer to removing ethics classes from schools. You ask why? Because students get a choice between ethics and scripture, and he believed scripture shouldn't have that kind of competition. So, are you conservatives happy now? Are you going to stop before the world enters into a 2nd period of the Dark Ages, where any scientific belief against religion is persecuted severely? You pull shit like this, and wonder why the science-oriented have such a vendetta against religion....

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/keep-your-politics-out-of-our-classrooms-mr-nile-20110801-1i77c.html

Invading whole countries because terrorists might be located in them is simply madness. Plus, jihad terrorists aren't really a bigh threat. My country is more likely to be hit by internal terorist attacks from Hungarian separatist groups, then it it to be hit by johad terrorists. Islamists are really the least active group of terrorists in Europe (and worldwide too, if I'm not mistaken).

I agree, but most Americans see them as a treat to thier people and thus they invade them. And I would argue that jiahd terrorist are most wide spread in the world at the moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D0Ex6FypUmTw

This video is blockdd in Germany, let me knw if its working to you

Sorry, that is not a legitimatereason to invade another country. And what makes you think 'most Americans see them as a threat'? I'm pretty sure the support for the Iraq war is very low. Plus, people only know what the Government tells them, and it's already been proven that misinformation was spread.

The video doesn't work here either. Still, in Europe at least, Islamists are the least worrisome group.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-28/europe/29824511_1_separatist-groups-islamist-terror-strikes

If I were in Spain I'd feel much safer next to a muslim than next to a Basque person.

I am not disagreeing with you on Iraq, im just saying how they see the situation. And Fox News is very influental in America.

And try to go to Kosovo and see how safe it is for non-muslim non-albanians there.

I agree with all you said except for the last part: Saddam Hussein WAS a terrorist. But to be honest, the country would've been better off with him in power (if he stayed until today, the Arab Spring would've seen him ousted, and with far fewer civilian casualties than the Iraq war) rather than what it became afterwards: An anarchic country with the Kurds in the north, the Shia in the south, and the Sunni Iraqis stranded in the center. The ongoing civil war that erupted after the invasion is simply one of the darkest periods Iraq has ever seen.

I would say more, but I would just be going off-topic, and it's anecdotal/circumstantial evidence anyways.

To be fair, the Arab Spring may have been made possible from the fall of Saddam, just given that a people in the Middle East got to experience democracy, though it's hard to prove or disprove either way. A very good what if, though.

If you're referring to the people of Iraq when you said the underlined...it may seem that way, politically. But the harsh reality is, it's an anarchy. If anything, the ensuing violence would be a deterrent for revolting. But there you go, that's what happens in a war-torn/colonized land.

The Arab Spring revolts are all united efforts (except Syria, where it's the Sunnis and Christians against the Alawis, though it isn't unjustified, and Bahrain, where it's the Shia against the Sunnis). The people all have common goals, regardless of political and religious ideals. That's what keeps a country's unity.

Really dislike my president (Obama)
Rather happy with my governor (Kaisch)
Off and on relationship with my congressman (Austria)
Mixed bag with my senators (Sherrod Brown and Portman)