“Curiosity is the kernal of forbidden fruit.”

I think it may just go both ways. Curiosity denotes a certain amount of available information that was not previously within consciousness' grasp. Not just a transgression but, in a statist theocracy such as now infests this land, liberty can be that forbidden fruit that curiosity would desire a taste.

Try asking your government for copies of legislation they have passed. You'll be treated like a wet dog at a wedding.

Unbelievable how Mike can work "statist theocracy" into every comment these days... those who would think this to be a good quote would take us back to the dark ages. It is curiosity which drives activities like raw scientific research, without which we would still be huddled in a cold cave fearing the night.

Back to the dark ages Reston? as opposed to forward into global slavery? I think you are shortsighted and incapable of understanding where this "statist theocracy" that Mike so often and accurately points to...are taking us. Let alone all of the UN American ramifications of this Statist Theocracy.

A from Reston, what is unbelievable about the statist theocracy infesting this land or, how I expose it so often. It is to bad your belief system makes the truth unbelievable. I've given you legal, court case, scholastic, and government definitions of religion. When governments enter into the domain that is uniquely religious, that government becomes a theocracy. Statism is the doctrine or practice of vesting control, planning, etc. in a centralized state government. Thus the once representative republic at law, limited by a secular defining constitution has been replaced by a Statist Theocracy of men.

Reston does have a point. Your rhetoric does seem to follow the same pattern regardless of subject. Its not so much that you use the statist theocracy our of place its that you use it nearly every time you comment. As John Mill said "...with small men no great thing can really be accomplished." and the goal of statist theocracy is to make small men. Curiosity can be the kernel of many things and forbidden fruit can be what ever you desire. We need a secular state without God. The followers of God are the cause of our current state.

Robert, I somewhat agree with you. Those that make government their Atheist god, compelling government care of the poor, sharing the wealth, enforcing humanist ethical philosophies, recognizing only government authorized marriages and other religious sacraments, prohibiting We The People's free exercise of religion within their personal representations' domains are truly a majority cause of our current state. Other, or competing god justified actions also play a role in the loss of freedom and liberty. Secular government within the de jure States united is limited to codes, statutes, etc. representing natural law with in the legal domain of life, liberty, and property.

Government is a believer therefore they cannot be atheist. Who is compelling government to care for the poor? surly you must know it is us and not the government. Government shares the wealth with the wealthy not the poor. What humanist ethical philosophies are they enforcing - I thought if they are enforcing it would be theocratic. The sooner we have religion out of government the better - you already have free exercise of religion - you have put God into everything, money, schools, meetings, gatherings, the pledge, and the list goes on. What more do you want - where is your freedom of religion being attacked? I didn't quite get your last sentence; are you agreeing that a secular government would be better than a government that mixes politics with religion? Isn't natural law and a secular government on the same team?

I thought I have been emphatically clear, a secular government is best. It is better than a government that mixes politics with religion. Natural law and a secular government are one in the same. The 'us' you are speaking of that is, in the name of government compelling care for the rich or poor, the rest of my previous comments, and more; is a theocracy. Your definition of atheist only addresses that you are not a Catholic, not a religionist. "any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system is humanism as a religion" (Websters) Defining marriage as between a man and a woman, or a man and a man is an ethical dogma existing uniquely as a religious sacrament, for one example. Secular government can deal with the life, liberty, and property of the relationship, but not the relationship itself (at natural law). Freedom of religion is being attacked when Christen or Muslim children can not pray in school or sporting events, no Boy Scout troupe can camp on public lands, crosses or Muslim symbols can not be displayed at the site of death. I'm offended when Buddhists can't chant in public and only atheist expressions are acceptable in military grave yards, etc., etc., etc. If there was a true freedom of religion, it wouldn't matter what religion you were, you would be able to express yourself freely anywhere. And, if a communication to any ones God (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) is offensive to someone not of that faith, that's to bad, let the bigot get over it / or not.

Robert, a point of correction. The statist theocracy that now infests this land claims to have inherent right, in and of itself; an organic hegemony. It exists completely outside any / no relationship to the once sovereign (now mere numbered chattel) All policing powers have been declared, over and over again, totally aloof from We The People. All policing personnel and agencies are for revenuer activities and protecting government property. Voting, maintaining the appearance of the past, now only serves the selection of aloof jailers and agents of the foreign despots. We, you and me, no longer have a government, we simply allow the foreign despots to have their way with us for what ever reason.

Mike you absolutely amaze me - you truly speak with a fork tongue. On one hand you agree with a secular sate and then on the other you insist that openly religious prey in public schools, etc. etc. is OK. OF COURSE IT'S NOT AND THE REASON ARE VERY OBVIOUS. Mike, you are a nice chap and I agree with a lot of what you say but on this issue you are way out of line.

The term 'public school' would denote an educational system representing a place of We The People's learning. I believe the greater the expression the better. If one day an Atheist moment of silence started the class room, the next day a Buddhist acknowledgment, the next day started with a Christian prayer, then a Hindu mantra, and so on and so on, everyone's education would be enhanced, fear of the unknown would subside, bigotry lessened, and all would be better represented. If a Muslim child were permitted to remove themselves quietly and orderly to the back of a class room to face Mecca, it would become common place, non-disruptive and enhance that individuals, and everyone's freedom of religion. If there is no freedom of religion in public schools, then they are not public, they are private schools of bigotry. As admitted, I am a believing Christian (working on the character) that follows Christ's admonition of loving my neighbor as myself - that includes learning of the non-criminal free expression of my neighbors religious beliefs. After school years, life gets busy and the same opportunity to learn of our fellow man is diminished by time and other restraints. What is 'VERY OBVIOUS' ? Allowing freedom of religion or other moral imperatives is not the same thing as the secular justice system's (executive, legislative, and judicial) duties of administering life, liberty, or property. As the freedom of religion is being gradually exterminated, so goes all freedom.

Robert, what is very obvious is that you not knowing or accepting a difference between your emotionalism / your ethical philosophies / your moral imperatives and natural law does not make me speak with a fork tongue. One reason the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" was because the de jure government of We The People was limited to natural law administrations of a very small and set classification at life, liberty, and property (not limiting or legislating morality - or the free expression thereof) Your theocratic mantra claims that it has a moral superiority over other beliefs and expressions and should be the only belief recognized or expressed in public; it is not, and should not !