who had first hand experience with Jesus himself.

Luke's gospel was written between 59-79AD, and while Luke was an associate of Paul (who was an apostle) he never actually met Jesus, so can not claim to have "first hand experience." That being said, historians consider Luke to be a thorough historian, relying on decent source material. (Although many consider the other gospels - particularly John - to have provided Luke with more than his fair share of source)
Mark was an associate of Simon Peter, again an apostle. Mark's gospel was written in about 60AD, and are believed to be Peter's accounts, who had first hand experience with Jesus himself.
Matthew was an apostle. But his accounts weren't written until about 50AD.
John was a disciple, so had first hand experience

I'll be honest: I'm a Christian. I don't go to Church because I don't appreciate being told nonsense like gays shouldn't get married. I don't appreciate the kind of Christian who tells me how to conduct a relationship with God, or anyone else. But I do believe in God, I believe in Jesus and a whole bunch of other stuff. So please don't think I'm trying to rubbish the Bible in any way. But I have a scientific and academic background, so I don't take everything at face value. I don't think not believing in the full historical accuracy of the Bible in any way negates its importance or relevance. I happen to know that many scholars who study this stuff believe the Bible to miss a bunch of historical facts - they gloss over Pilate, for instance, where we know he wasn't as great/forgiving as sometimes offered us (Passion of the Christ anyone?!). But a lack of historical accuracy does not invalidate the message.

_____________________________
Insert funny quote here

Jumping in on converssations and replies not meant for you generally isnt the best thing to do.

Kissing my ass probably isn't the best thing to do either, but I could still ask you to do it.

Have you heard the words out of this mans mouth?
"God told me to strike at Osama. I did that. God told me to strike at Saddam..." -George Walker Bush
If this quotation isn't clear evidence that your president is marrying church and state in a straight ceremony...

It isn't. You're just too blinded by your bigotry to know that a) there is no legal basis for the separation of church and state and b) nowhere did he claim to be a holy man.

"practically speaking, no unbiased sources when it comes to controversial or relevant social issues"
Uh... the history of the bible (which I was referring to) isn't exactly controversial.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for proving how stupid and uninformed you are.

There are two sides: Christians Side "The bible as is is GOds message to Man:
Sane Side "The bible has been rewritten many times throughout history, and is not an accurate historical document".

So, when the earliest versions are retranslated, thus circumventing the subsequent rewritings, this just doesn't even appear on your radar, right?

My comment was that getting "evidence" supporting the christian viewpoint from mumbo-pocus websites isn't compelling in an argument.

No, jagoff, your comment was that the government should step in and stop public displays of what YOU consider ahistorical, in other words, you want to abridge the right of free speech in pursuit of your social engineering goals.

You've said you aren't an American citizen, right? Well, we can all agree that's a very very good thing.

"All those people and sources you think are unbiased are anything but"
Which sources? Which people? You have no idea where I get my information from - heres that strawman you hate so much.

It doesn't matter WHERE you get your information, because ALL information concerning social matters is biased. ALL OF IT! When people are studying things that have an impact on human life, their conclusions and even their data are BY DEFINITION biased. Wake up and smell the real world.

So, a congressman, respecting an establishment of religion, such as Christianity, voting in Congress to make a law respective to Christianity isn't in violation of that amendment?

Thaaaaat's RIIIIIGHT! The wording is clear: Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. It doesn't say that "your religion shall not inform your legislation."

Learn english. The church and state separation does indeed go both ways, hence the end of the quoted sentence.

Apparently it is YOU who needs to learn English, Mr. Digestional.

This comment was edited on Apr 17, 14:36.

Historical Accuracy? Unless you saw the Jesus that was stolen from a nativity scene in I believe Tennesee, not one of those scenes depicts Jesus as having dark brown skin; he was either Arab or Black, and that is a fact historians both Christian and sane agree on.

Astounding fact #1: Arabs are Caucasoid. Yes I know, you might need time to absorb that. Astounding fact #2, Jesus's racial stock is probably best imagined by looking at Palestinians or Sephardic Jews - they aren't brown, they're white.

Moog

Historical Accuracy? Unless you saw the Jesus that was stolen from a nativity scene in I believe Tennesee, not one of those scenes depicts Jesus as having dark brown skin; he was either Arab or Black, and that is a fact historians both Christian and sane agree on.

It’s becoming clear you do not know what you are talking about here. Sorry, but it’s quite clear from the Bible (which if you had read the sites on textual accuracy of the New Testament would know) that Jesus was a Jew, certainly not an Arab.

“"God told me to strike at Osama. I did that. God told me to strike at Saddam..." -George Walker Bush” If this quotation isn't clear evidence that your president is marrying church and state in a straight ceremony...

I wonder which “god” he is talking about here.

Sane Side "The bible has been rewritten many times throughout history, and is not an accurate historical document". My comment was that getting "evidence" supporting the christian viewpoint from mumbo-pocus websites isn't compelling in an argument.

It does not matter that these sites are Christian, the information is accurate. If the information from these sites were not accurate, there would be sites that provide a counter to the information provided there. But you can ask any historian and they will tell you the same thing. The accuracy of the New Testament cannot be denied. Only by those that are explicitly trying to deny the Christian God.

Jedi
If a Christian wants to stand outside of a synagogue and preach at people about converting, is that his free exercise? Or is he infringing on someone else's free exercise? I don't think it's necessarily anyone's right to have a giant neon sign outside of their house so that cars on nearby high ways can see their beliefs.

Well if that is the case, then perhaps gays shouldn’t parade their beliefs in celebrations like the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in Sydney or other such celebrations in other cities? The thing is, we are getting involved in the free speech issue again. Which way would you rather it be?

Tango
On our quest to prove the accuracy of the bible, we mustn't forget all four gospels were written after the event, by people that never met Jesus, and at best were relying on third hand information. They skimp on facts we (think we) know now - the Pilate story is the most obvious example to have recently come to light.

Here is another completely incorrect piece of information. The New Testament was written by several of the apostles who had first hand experience with Jesus himself. If they ever "skimped" on information, it was because it was irrelevant.

We'll also forget that they were translated, retranslated, and translated again before they got to where they are now. Try a simple sentence in Babelfish into French, back to English, into German, and back to English. I'm obviously not suggesting that they are that far off the originals, especially given we can retranslate from the old documents now, but they have been rewritten many times, by many different interests.

I am guessing you didn’t read the links that I posted. Cross-reference of the documents that we have today is the way you verify the accuracy of the New Testament.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualexample.htm

We are not all the same, our relationships are not all the same, and no matter how hard leftists try to make humanity otherwise, they will always fail.

That's completely and totally irrelevant to the issue.

The fact remains that homosexuals don't want equal rights, they want new ones.

They wan't the right to get married.

They have the right to get married.

This is your entire argument right here, the rest is just babble. It's childish in its stupidity. Just stop posting, your pages of ramblings are leading absolutely nowhere.

~Steve

it isn't possible for a man and a woman to feel for each other what two men or two women can

L.A.C.K O.F. U.N.D.E.R.S.T.A.N.D.I.N.G.
The fact that gays want to get married shows that even if that is the case, whatever they do feel is strong enough to 'qualify' for marriage. If you have ever met a gay loving couple, then you'll know it's no different from a straight loving couple.

The strength of their feelings is irrelevant. One can no more justify redefining marriage based on homosexual strength of feeling than he can redefining it based on the bestialist's feelings for his goat. I have met homosexual couples, and I know that they are qualitatively different from heterosexual couples.

Your insistence otherwise sounds a lot like the common leftist tendency to reduce all human beings to raw material (a legacy of Marxism). A man's love for a woman is not the same as a woman's love for a man. A man's fraternal love of his fellow man is not the same as a woman's affection for her fellow woman. A man's homosexual love for a man isn't the same as a woman's homosexual love for a woman. For that matter, a woman is not the same as a man, and a heterosexual is not the same as a homosexual.

We are not all the same, our relationships are not all the same, and no matter how hard leftists try to make humanity otherwise, they will always fail.

The fact remains that homosexuals don't want equal rights, they want new ones.

They wan't the right to get married.

They have the right to get married.

To have the full privelidges that marriage affords straight couples - to take each other's name, full taxation benefits, full recognition by every organisation that recognises marriage, etc.

They have all these rights already - these rights just don't fit with their desires. Their problem is with the rights themselves, not with having them denied.

If this is a new right, then yeah, that's what they want.

The ability for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman would indeed be new rights.

I fail to see what difference it makes, but what I do see is that currently they are unable to join each other in the way they want.

Well, yes, they are. Many people are unable to join each other in the way they want. Five men cannot marry seven women, no matter how badly they want to.

If they were allowed to, I don't see how it weakens the institute of marriage, unless it is your opinion that marriage should be restricted to man and woman.

It isn't my opinion that marriage should be restricted to man and woman, it is fact that marriage is man and woman.

And I am yet to see convincing evidence that this is the case.

Missed the entire history and purpose of marriage, have you? That's not my problem.

You simply haven't thought through the matter far enough to find where the infringement occurs in this case

I've thought about it plenty. It does not occur. Please suggest some of your ideas.

I'll get back to you, I want to think them through a bit. For now content yourself with the fact that all legislation involves infringement on someone's rights or powers, that's the nature of legislation.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" (Jefferson's Letter to von Humboldt, 1813)

Jefferson's correspondence isn't law of the land, and this passage isn't even an argument for separation of church and state.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" (Jefferson's Letter to H. Spafford, 1814)

Jefferson's correspondence isn't the law of the land, and his personal feelings about priests aren't directly relevant.

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731, emphasis added).

This isn't the law of the land either. Furthermore, it does not support the separation of church and state. The passage does not prohibit translating one's religious beliefs into legislation, nor does it prohibit a church from effectively dominating the government. What it does prohibit is congress mucking about with people's religion and enforcing religious belief, precisely as I stated below.

In other words, the Constitution prohibits congress from legislating belief, it does NOT prohibit congress from legislating according to their beliefs. So for example, a prohibition on alchol because of religious belief is okay, legislation forcing everyone to go to a church that preaches prohibition is not (avoiding the other limits of Constitutional power for the moment for purposes of argument).

This comment was edited on Apr 16, 15:52.

"Restricting people's soliciting of their religion is not necessarily restricting their "free exercise.""

Actually, unfortunately it does. I think what we are confusing here is the right of government to impose or make laws in respect to religion, down to the individual’s right to exercise it.

No, I said it doesn't necessarily restrict their free exercise, and that's true. People can solicit, but there are limites like on all freedoms. I didn't say disallowing solicitation, but restricting it. If a Christian wants to stand outside of a synagogue and preach at people about converting, is that his free exercise? Or is he infringing on someone else's free exercise? I don't think it's necessarily anyone's right to have a giant neon sign outside of their house so that cars on nearby high ways can see their beliefs.

EDIT: Knocking on someone's door and discussing something on a forum are completely different. I've come here for the conversation, but if I didn't invite someone to my house I'd rather they not show up. I don't have any respect for people pushing their beliefs on random strangers.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 16, 13:34.

Jumping in on converssations and replies not meant for you generally isnt the best thing to do.
first:

"Congress shall make no law ..."

The point of contention was local laws (namely those in New York), not those brought forth by congress, ergo I am correct on Constitutional grounds.

Historical Accuracy? Unless you saw the Jesus that was stolen from a nativity scene in I believe Tennesee, not one of those scenes depicts Jesus as having dark brown skin; he was either Arab or Black, and that is a fact historians both Christian and sane agree on. I would suggest putting subliminal messages like that one (Jesus was white, so white kids stand up, God looks like you), which have historically been the cause of millions of deaths, into a public education facility wherein the most inpressionable people in society reside for eight hours a day is a bad idea. Keeping nativity scenes out of school does not infringe on the practice of religion, it infringes upon advertisement of religion.

"He wants us to believe his mission is a holy crusade from God? He wants us to believe he's a holy man?"
Have you heard the words out of this mans mouth?
"God told me to strike at Osama. I did that. God told me to strike at Saddam..." -George Walker Bush
If this quotation isn't clear evidence that your president is marrying church and state in a straight ceremony...

"practically speaking, no unbiased sources when it comes to controversial or relevant social issues"
Uh... the history of the bible (which I was referring to) isn't exactly controversial. There are two sides: Christians Side "The bible as is is GOds message to Man:
Sane Side "The bible has been rewritten many times throughout history, and is not an accurate historical document". My comment was that getting "evidence" supporting the christian viewpoint from mumbo-pocus websites isn't compelling in an argument.

"All those people and sources you think are unbiased are anything but"
Which sources? Which people? You have no idea where I get my information from - heres that strawman you hate so much.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
So, a congressman, respecting an establishment of religion, such as Christianity, voting in Congress to make a law respective to Christianity isn't in violation of that amendment? Learn english. The church and state separation does indeed go both ways, hence the end of the quoted sentence.


The companies will be very pleased.
This comment was edited on Apr 16, 10:54.

"Restricting people's soliciting of their religion is not necessarily restricting their "free exercise.""

Actually, unfortunately it does. I think what we are confusing here is the right of government to impose or make laws in respect to religion, down to the individual’s right to exercise it. The individual should always have the right to solicit his or her own beliefs. As much as I dislike Mormons coming to my home, it is their right. There is no law against it. I like that fact actually, since it means I am free to do the same if I wish, whether that be knocking on someone’s door or simply discussing it in a forum like this one.

On the point of the constitution, since governments around the world are madly signing away their sovereignty to the UN, it may explain why the government is now stepping into religion.

United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion... Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

I like the “benign” department name. Sarcasm aside, compare it to the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Constitution

Now compare it again to an extract of the previous clause.

"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law..."

It basically means the UN is overriding the constitution, which is quite nasty stuff if you think about it. Sure, the full chapter mentions things like the sake of public safety etc. But what is this clause on morals? That’s just a little too vague for me. If I claim that the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong in God’s eyes and a homosexual says that is immoral of me to do so, where do we go from there? Suddenly I will be in breach of law, so you can see how nasty vague little clauses like this can be.


Just go to http://www.overlawyered.com to see where vagueness gets people.

First, pat on the back all round for taking this post to the 180 post heights.

it isn't possible for a man and a woman to feel for each other what two men or two women can

L.A.C.K O.F. U.N.D.E.R.S.T.A.N.D.I.N.G.
The fact that gays want to get married shows that even if that is the case, whatever they do feel is strong enough to 'qualify' for marriage. If you have ever met a gay loving couple, then you'll know it's no different from a straight loving couple.

The fact remains that homosexuals don't want equal rights, they want new ones.

They wan't the right to get married. To have the full privelidges that marriage affords straight couples - to take each other's name, full taxation benefits, full recognition by every organisation that recognises marriage, etc. If this is a new right, then yeah, that's what they want. I fail to see what difference it makes, but what I do see is that currently they are unable to join each other in the way they want. If they were allowed to, I don't see how it weakens the institute of marriage, unless it is your opinion that marriage should be restricted to man and woman. And I am yet to see convincing evidence that this is the case.

You simply haven't thought through the matter far enough to find where the infringement occurs in this case

I've thought about it plenty. It does not occur. Please suggest some of your ideas.

Where is this written?

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" (Jefferson's Letter to von Humboldt, 1813)

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" (Jefferson's Letter to H. Spafford, 1814)

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731, emphasis added).

If indeed the first amendment is the basis of "separation of church and state," then I would still argue that it doesn't work both ways. The first amendment doesn't say "legislators shall not legislate according to their beliefs," or even that church and state shall remain separate. It simply says that congress isn't allowed to go mucking about with peoples beliefs by way of legislation. The wording is, "regarding the establishment of religion." Basically it's saying that congress isn't allowed to outlaw religions or make one religion the official religion of the state or the people.

If you understand the last part I don't see why this is difficult. If the government enforces a particular set of religious beliefs by law or endorses one religion over another that can be seen as a state religion, or a step towards one. The government has always been meant to be secular.

Their job is to allow everyone free exercise of religion, but of course that's limited. If my religion involves human sacrifice, that's not legal justification for murder. And if you exercising you belief prevents me from doing the same, the government steps in. This is a democracy, but the individual is always protected and provided with basic rights. This has always been the (intended) case in our government. If 99% of people all agree that 1% of the people should be exterminated, that doesn't mean it will happen; those people have the right to live. Restricting people's soliciting of their religion is not necessarily restricting their "free exercise."

~Steve

It's interesting - while I agree the government shouldn't really concern itself with religious matters, and often gets carried away doing so, the separation of church and state works both ways.

I don't really understand the whole "separation of church and state" platitude. I don't understand how one gets from the religion clause to "separation of church and state."

If indeed the first amendment is the basis of "separation of church and state," then I would still argue that it doesn't work both ways. The first amendment doesn't say "legislators shall not legislate according to their beliefs," or even that church and state shall remain separate. It simply says that congress isn't allowed to go mucking about with peoples beliefs by way of legislation. The wording is, "regarding the establishment of religion." Basically it's saying that congress isn't allowed to outlaw religions or make one religion the official religion of the state or the people.

g[To paint with a broad brush, anti-gay marriage people fall into two camps, although they often fall into both...

Now that is a lack of understanding. It's not intolerance, Im not saying you hate homosexuals - indeed you say you do not and I am willing to believe you. But on the basis of what you have said, you do not understand it.

I don't hate homosexuals. My issues were with homosexuality, not homosexuals. Similarly, if someone slaughters goats as part of his religious practices, I don't hate him either, although I find his practices repugnant. I'm also capable of overcoming my prejudices to recognize that his religious practices are his right.

Therefore, you don't understand how it is possible that two men or women can feel for each other what a man and a woman can.

Hold on there pard - it isn't possible "that two men or women can feel for each other what a man and a woman can."

Similarly, it isn't possible for a man and a woman to feel for each other what two men or two women can. The two are not interchangeable, any more than a man's feelings for a woman are interchangeable for a woman's feelings for a man.

Sure, you say your problem is with the redefinition of marriage, and I can accept that. But the reason you don't want to invite two men or two women into the "married couples club" is because your definition of marriage is of a man and a woman.

My reasons don't really matter when the topic is that of rights. The fact remains that homosexuals don't want equal rights, they want new ones.

Sure, I admit the definition of most of American probably agrees with you. But even if 99% of the country didn't like something, if the 1% of the rest of the country want to do it, and it doesn't detract from the liberties and goods of the 99%, they should have every right to.

As I've said before, there is no law without infringement of liberty. You simply haven't thought through the matter far enough to find where the infringement occurs in this case (I admit I haven't either, although I have a few ideas - trust me though, it's there. It always is). In any event, as I've said ten times now, homosexuals have precisely the same rights as heterosexuals.

Furthermore, it is an easy argument to say they should be protected by the government - and the constitution agrees.

They are protected, as protected as anyone else.

As for the Christian group, well... by separation of church and state, they're entitled to their opinions. But they sure as hell aren't entitled to actively push one way or the other. However, with Bush being such a twat and in their pocket (on this issue, that isn't meant as a generalisation) , they don't have to push very hard.

Again, I'm brought back to this separation of church and state business. Where is this written? I don't see the justification for it.

if the government is keeping religious celebrations "out of the public eye" then it is most certainly interfering with religion.

It's interesting - while I agree the government shouldn't really concern itself with religious matters, and often gets carried away doing so, the separation of church and state works both ways. To paint with a broad brush, anti-gay marriage people fall into two camps, although they often fall into both: "I don't like it because Christianity doesn't like it", and "I don't like it because I don't understand homosexuality." With respect, Morlock, you fall into the second - you made it clear you weren't playing the Christianity card early on. To preempt your calls for evidence, I refer to post #66:

I don't have a problem with homosexuals, although I personally find contemplating the practice repugnant (especially buggery - where is it written that being attracted to men requires jamming one's dick up their asses?).

...continues...

I'm more of the "homosexuality is strange/repugnant - depends on the flavor as to which" crowd

Now that is a lack of understanding. It's not intolerance, Im not saying you hate homosexuals - indeed you say you do not and I am willing to believe you. But on the basis of what you have said, you do not understand it.

Therefore, you don't understand how it is possible that two men or women can feel for each other what a man and a woman can. Sure, you say your problem is with the redefinition of marriage, and I can accept that. But the reason you don't want to invite two men or two women into the "married couples club" is because your definition of marriage is of a man and a woman. Sure, I admit the definition of most of American probably agrees with you. But even if 99% of the country didn't like something, if the 1% of the rest of the country want to do it, and it doesn't detract from the liberties and goods of the 99%, they should have every right to. Furthermore, it is an easy argument to say they should be protected by the government - and the constitution agrees.

As for the Christian group, well... by separation of church and state, they're entitled to their opinions. But they sure as hell aren't entitled to actively push one way or the other. However, with Bush being such a twat and in their pocket (on this issue, that isn't meant as a generalisation) , they don't have to push very hard.

Keeping Christmas out of public schools, and out of the public eye does not equate to government interference with your religion.

Yes it does, what are you, on crack? You're wrong in the absolute sense - if the government is keeping religious celebrations "out of the public eye" then it is most certainly interfering with religion.

You're also wrong on Constitutional grounds:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

No where in your bible does it say: "Thou must publicly celebrate Christmas, in in celebration erect scenes of my sons birth" or anyghing like it, except that part about spreading the word of god.

Your interpretation of Christian doctrine is totally irrelevant. The Constitution forbids government interference with religion.

You are still allowed to practice Christmas as an event

Gee, really? Our masters' generosity knows no bounds.

and I think that putting wholly inaccurate historical depictions in public is a practice the government has every business putting an end to.

NONSENSE. Maybe in totalitarianville, where you come from, things are done differently, but here we have this thing called free speech:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

I didn't see jack shit about "historical accuracy" in there, which is pretty good since history changes from historian to historian.

Bloody jagoff.

Despite all the " imposing laws in the realm of religion " you interpret government actions as doing, religion still has absolutely no place in morally legislating behavior for the public.

Despite what you might think, there are no laws regarding what motivations people might have for any given legislation. If people want to enact laws based on their religious principles, they are totally free to do so. The Constitution prohibits the federal government from enacting laws restricting religion, it does not prohibit people from enacting laws that reflect their religious beliefs.

when you have the crown prince of darkness waving it around for his own devices, he does not become a holy man, nor does his mission from god become a holy crusade - but he'd sure the fuck have us all believe it is.

Huh? Are you referring to the President? He wants us to believe his mission is a holy crusade from God? He wants us to believe he's a holy man? Are you on medication?

You need unbiased information, not horn-tooting information.

I'll let you in on a little secret, since I'm starting to get the picture that you are quite young and inexperienced - unbiased information regarding social problems is virtually nonexistent. All those people and sources you think are unbiased are anything but.

There are, practically speaking, no unbiased sources when it comes to controversial or relevant social issues, everyone has a stake, and is therefore biased.

This comment was edited on Apr 15, 18:24.

" imposing laws in the realm of religion "
uh... ok. This dude willfully disobeyed three local laws when he put his sign up. Because the sign had a religious meaning, doesn't mean it's immune to law.

Keeping Christmas out of public schools, and out of the public eye does not equate to government interference with your religion. No where in your bible does it say: "Thou must publicly celebrate Christmas, in in celebration erect scenes of my sons birth" or anyghing like it, except that part about spreading the word of god. You are still allowed to practice Christmas as an event, and I think that putting wholly inaccurate historical depictions in public is a practice the government has every business putting an end to.

Despite all the " imposing laws in the realm of religion " you interpret government actions as doing, religion still has absolutely no place in morally legislating behavior for the public.

Thats some nice scripture you repeated there, but it doesn't exactly answer to the fact that fanatic mongos who'd interpret that scripture as "Enslave the entire race for profit, pay them a penny per day for our own conscience's sake" are the same mongos who'd make to interpret "christian morality" into law for all of us. I don't give a fuck what the bible says about it, when you have the crown prince of darkness waving it around for his own devices, he does not become a holy man, nor does his mission from god become a holy crusade - but he'd sure the fuck have us all believe it is.

Do yourself a favor, and go to a library to study the history of the bible. Your running to pro-Christian site afer pro-Christian site to copy and paste representations of single facts which bolster a particular argument is not going to provide you with the truth you so desperately seek. You need unbiased information, not horn-tooting information.

The companies will be very pleased.

This is quite the red light district

No doubt, I'm an old, skanky, diseased thread-whore. Hell, I bookmarked this page days ago.

This thread has now reached "thread whore" status...you know who you are.

http://www.depechemode.com

Your comments about referenda show how little you know about (edit: the practicalities of) the US political system.

That sounds like what an oligarch might say, or a gerontocrat, or a krytocrat, meritocrat, plutocrat, technocrat, etc.

What's there to be informed about?


Right, this really is a bit dumb.

Bah, you know as well as I do that the abortion debate doesn't come down to complex international relations, or economic theory, or whatever. It comes down to "does a woman's right to control her body trump a fetus's right to life?" It's a straight moral issue. It doesn't take an expert.

a) about five of us have managed to write probably in the region of 5000 words (not including quotes) on the subject. There's plenty to be informed about, discuss, on this one issue. When you think about every issue there is, that's loads.

Most of it has been hot air, you could parse the text and come out with about three concise paragraphs to sum up the relevant bits. We've been talking in circles for most of this discussion.

b) it is as much 'do you want to murder unborn children' as it is 'do you want to allow women the right to terminate an unborn foetus,' as it is 'is a foetus any more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree?'

Well, since cutting down an oak tree isn't a capital crime, the analogy's a bit off, but I still think the abortion issue is very straightforward. No one is going to come up with an answer to when a fetus is imbued with a soul any time soon, and most of America by now is informed enough to make a decision.

It's interpretation, which you can only legitimately do if you are informed. Being told what your party believes in church / conservative rallies / liberal rallies etc is not being informed. I would agree with the (inevitable) point that democracy gives me the right to be an ass in the booth and tick random boxes, but when this potentially limits others' liberties, we have a conundrum between democracy and liberty.

"When this potentially limits others' liberties?" I have a newsflash for you, this just in: every single piece of legislation ever enacted involves a limitation of others' liberties, that's the nature of law. NOTHING the government does fails to limit someone's liberties. Basically, I think what I'm hearing is that you just don't much care for the democratic principle. Basically, you're saying that democracy is wonderful as long as people vote in ways that you think prudent. As you so grudgingly admitted, democracy involves the "right to be an ass." One man's jackass is another man's genius.

Unfortunately, the US public are one of the least informed, politically dealigned and disinterested.

As is their right. Again, you seem to have a problem with democracy when it enfranchises people you don't agree with. What is the point of democracy at all if everyone agrees? In that case, a totalitarian government is PRECISELY as effective and free, because the dictator by definition will only enact legislation with which everyone agrees.

Therefore votes (of any kind, and this extends to polling, so 60% think X must also be questioned) are not always the best course. And partly why they are so seldom used.

I know why they're so seldom used: our elites don't want us making our own decisions because very often they disagree with their own goals.

edit: LOL, just read what you've written. That sounds like an argument for facism if I've ever heard one. Don't take that the wrong way, it's just that, I've discussed issues with people advocating facism before (amicably, mind you), and this is precisely their argument.

Oui, but see earlier comments. Democracy in the strictest sense (which, I agree can mean majority rule ) is in fact an unfair system in that it allows the majority (who may be misinformed) to bully the minority (who may feel passionately about an issue.) That's the ugly side of democracy, and it's why the constitution goes to great lengths to (try to) ensure it doesn't happen.

I don't really see how the Constitution goes to such great lengths. All the Constitution does is set the boundaries of federal power. EVERYTHING else is left to the States and their citizens, for good or ill. Again, you're saying that you don't really care for democracy. Democracy IS the bullying of the minority by the majority, that's the heart of the concept. It is designed for relatively coherent culturally related populations, which is why I have my doubts about its future in American politics, to the limited degree that it exists today.

Furthermore, you start putting salient issues on the ballots (which are already complex enough) and they'll soon become a ballot 'book' with everything from abortion to offshore drilling to space telescope initiatives.

See, offshore drilling is an economic issue with environmental aspects, and isn't really the sort of thing most people WANT on a referendum. Space telescopes are a matter for scientists and the informed (whether or not we should fund increased overall scientific funding is another story). Abortion isn't complicated, it's an issue on which nearly everyone has a clear position. It's really just a matter of moral preference, there's no need for the intelligensia to baby us on such a simple issue.

What I seem to be hearing from you is,"democracy is great as long as the stupid and misinformed are disenfranchised." My response is, how would the resultant system be a democracy?

This comment was edited on Apr 15, 14:03.

Look at this mans run in with the government.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32743

Oh man, boo fucking hoo. I don't see how asking this guy to remove a giant sign is infringing on his right to practice his religion. If someone had a giant sign that said "God doesn't exist" in a southern town, how do you think people would react to it? WorldNetDaily is a pretty hilarious name for that site. A nice objective sounding title.

~Steve