Absolutely nothing Steve. You might however have a "little" trouble taking possession of the 5 acres I squat on.:D

No, Rho. Lobbyists rule.:(

being used as in I took advantage of the discount sale at albertsons this weekend.

The government says Indians can take advantage of certain benefits allowed only to them. No problem right?

The same government says people married to the opposite sex can take advantage of certain benefits allowed only to them.
Now we have discrimination.

I don't care what the reasons are for either...seems to be a lil silly

I still fail to see how it's harming you if there are same sex marriages. What do you care if it happens? You lose nothing. You lost nothing personally when opposite sex marriages occur, so why does it matter if there are same sex marriages? Why oppose them? What's to gain by opposing them?

Or just ignore all of my points like you've done so far. What do I care?

Quzah.

Well, how do you know that you're not just "choosing" to be attracted to women? Maybe that's a choice, too. Why do you think that it isn't?

Except that heterosexuals aren't a massively wronged minority.

Western tribes built massive adobe towns, excavated cave towns, and built stone buildings, all of which still exist to some extent.

Precisely.


Exactly. "Whitey" had no goddamned right to come and take over like they did. Natives were minding their own damned business, until...

{snip}



M'kay: this sounds like, "Well, if THEY can kill each other, then it's ok if WE (whitey) kill them too!!!" Say what?!?

*shaking my head....*

I know this is beside the point, but it's still interesting.

Jared Diamond argues in the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" that Native Americans failed to develop technology as fast as the Europeans mostly because of a lack of large domesticatable animals (and plants).

Europeans had horses, pigs, cows, sheep, and goats. Native Americans had nothing!

Cultures that lived in regions containing domesticatable animals and plants were able to switch over from a hunter-gather lifestyle to an agricultural lifestyle, and as a result, developed technology more quickly.

But yes, of course they still killed each other.

Why? Who says they can't? Because you don't like it? PersonsA invades PersonsB all throughout history. What makes one OK and another wrong? Because it steps on your toes here and not there?

So it's fine to lump "all the indians" together, as a mass, and let them have their infighting, and that's OK, but it's not OK if someone else wants to go fight with them too?

You missed my point, which is: Why is it fine for them to have their infighting, but horrific when whitey wants to play too?

So it's ok for TribeA to fight TribeB, but when OutsiderGroupA comes along, they can't kill anyone? See the absurdity in your logic here? If Whitey had used bows and arrows, then would it have been OK for them to fight too? Was it the guns that made it wrong? Superior firepower? Your logic makes no sense.

Quzah.

Who was making the Native Americans out to be a bunch of peacemongers here?

Quzah, I'm afraid that I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that Native Americans as a group should not get special considerations?

I like his bit on Pagans and Stonehenge.

If NAs were collectively fat lazy alcoholic dopesmokers......
they would fit into this modern day American society like a glove!

My limited experience with them doesnt support them being FLADs though. My experience is very limited though because <a href="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/families/qesther.htm"<a>General Sullivan (read last paragraph) </a> killed all but a handful in this area, leaving no decendants for me to argue with and harass.

Now, lets look at this white religious BS and it's importance to one's survival, at that time.

soldier: Do you believe in Jesus?
injun: ......Katanka...
soldier: BANG!...Do you believe in Jesus?
smart injun: (starts weeping) Why, yes and I feel blessed that he has come into my life and saved me from eternal damnation.
soldier: Outstanding! Here are some clothes and some real food. Shit-can that feathery headset and I'll introduce you to my sister.

For what it's worth...
 

I'm not quite sure why it is assumed that all christians are homophobic. At least, that is what I'm inferring from many posts here.

Granted, there are most certainly some who are...maybe even many...but all?

There have been so many intelligent arguments displayed here, and it is very easy to understand that homosexual couples would desire the same rights/advantages of marriage; however, one would be hard-pressed to find a very large number of evangelical christians to support that request.

Why? Well, it certainly must be because we are all vehwy, vehwy afwaid of them. Or maybe it's just that we hate them. (I'm being sarcastic here, just in-case that is not translating...)

For christians, the Bible is law. Some of man's laws coincide with scripture, some do not. It should not be too surprising that christians would not like to see something that is against God's law, become legal as man's law. That's not too hard to understand, right?

So, what do we do about that? We attempt to put people in office that will support out beliefs when it comes to these issues. How is that so different from those who would do the opposite. Why does it always have to be misconstrued as *fear* or *phobia*?

Same sex relationships are an abomination in God's eyes. (Yes, that's in the Bible. I'll post scripture ref. if anyone really cares to know, but I don't think anyone would doubt that this is in the Bible. And this matters to me because the Bible is my authority...yes, even above man's laws). As a christian, I could do nothing less than to fight against legalization of homosexual marriage.

Do I think that I can actually stop the world from doing whatever it wants to? No. Do I think that it is a possibility that christians can keep everyone from sinning, thus making the world a warm, fuzzy place for us to live in? No, and believe it or not, we realize that would be scripturally impossible. The Bible speaks of the depravity of man... It's just a matter of time. The world will become more and more sinister. It all plays out in revelation. (I post these comments based on my belief in God as represented in the Bible...just in case that did not translate as well.)

However, not even the above-mentioned scenario will deter me (us) from trying to be a light in a dark world.

I am not afraid of homosexuals. They do not *creep me out*. They are just people, in need of a Savior, IMHO. Of course, I know that these types of comments won't go over well with many here. I just thought it was worthy of saying. We (christians) are just trying to live our lives the way we feel God wants us to. Just trying to find our way...searching for God's will every day. Desiring to show the love of Christ to all that we come in contact with. Most of us mean no harm...really.

So, with that said...back to your regularly scheduled debate. ;)

(I have really enjoyed reading through these forums for the past few days...haven't gotten much cleaning done for Thanksgiving though. So many intelligent people here. So many funny people here...some are both. Bracing myself now for what ever replies will come. Bring it on...I can handle it. It can't be scarier than natural child birth...)

Blessings,

Jennifer <><

A very large percentage of people here have had less than positive experiences with the bible and God so therefore discount any of the wisdom of each.

MY internet connection is unbefuckinglievably slow for some unknown reason so I am unable to keep up with posts as normal.

By slow I mean it takes 2 fucking minutes just to access the reply dialog.

I am sorry to hear that. Sorry, but not surprised, considering that christians are only human...and, well...God is just hard to understand sometimes. I'm assuming you mean that people here have had unpleasant experiences with christians.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying that people have had unpleasant experiences with God and the Bible. I'm thinking maybe you mean that they disagree with the Bible...and choose not to believe in God? Please correct me if I'm way off base.

At any rate, I understand the gist of what you are saying. Life is hard. Period. I'm sure we all would like to make some sense of it. For some of us, belief in God brings not only sanity in the midst of chaos, as well as peace in the midst of impossible circumstances.

...sorry 'bout your slow whatever it is... (I know just enough about computers to make me dangerous...)

Correct.

Should I trace my lineage so I can find someone who wronged my ancestors and demand something in payment from then? Absurd.

Quzah.

(slang blinks at the monitor......squinting, reads Quzah's last post....then falls out of his chair, bumps his head.....lies babbling, and twitching on the floor)

I actually agree with Quzah

I dont have a vcr or dvd player and I just googled it and I dont understand how this relates to the current conversation.

On top of that, my cable connection is almost as slow as smoke signals and I just heaved my couch out of the window in frustration.

Can you give me a summary?

The little head tells me.;)

I think the reference was probably to agressive missionaries and zealots who imposed their will in the name of God and the Bible. Torquemata (sp) for example.:)

Re: For what it's worth...
 

Why? Nobody is trying to force Christians to marry gay. It is against strict Catholic doctrine to eat meat on Fridays. Would it be OK, if the Catholics gained control of the government, for them to forbid the sale or consumption of meat on Fridays? Or for Jews or Muslims to forbid the sale of pork altogether? Or for scientologists to ban the psychiatric profession? You have to realize that not everyone has the same beliefs. It is OK for Catholic clergy to admonish Catholics not to eat meat on Fridays. It is Ok for rabbis and clerics to forbid their followers to eat pork. It is OK for scientologists to discourage their followers fom seeing a shrink. But it is not OK, should any of them get into a position of political power, for them to attempt to foist religious requirements on the general public.

That's the difference. If someone was trying to prevent you from practicing your religion, you would have an issue. But instead someone is trying to give people more rights - people who do not share your beliefs. Why should your religious beliefs trump theirs?

Re: Re: For what it's worth...
 

No, it's not. But your point stands. Government cannot determine the will of God.

there is a certain irony in a fundie called Happy Monkey.

Re: For what it's worth...
 

I respect your opinion, but I just want to point out to everybody else here that this does not represent the opinion of all Christians.

Why should I believe this reason when you don't believe it when it's offered up by gays?

Sorry, I still think heterosexuality is a choice.

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm a fundie. I'm not religious at all.

jaguar can't read, Happy Monkey, so he just makes stuff up. Don't let it bother you.

Correct. It's nobody's business what they do to each other.

Say what? Who cares about HOW they killed off the Natives. The fact that they did and WHY they fought them and tried to kill them off was wrong.

The Trail Of Tears ring a bell?

Hollywood has left the impression that the great Indian wars came in the Old West during the late 1800's, a period that many think of simplistically as the "cowboy and Indian" days. But in fact that was a "mopping up" effort. By that time the Indians were nearly finished, their subjugation complete, their numbers decimated. The killing, enslavement, and land theft had begun with the arrival of the Europeans. But it may have reached its nadir when it became federal policy under President (Andrew) Jackson.

Kenneth C. Davis, from his book Don't Know Much About History

See also:
A Brief History of the Cherokee Nation

It wasn't all about just "fighting". History tells us that Europeans had a habit of "fighting" the Native cultures of many lands that they invaded. Try "attempting to eliminate" by intimidation, slavery, internment camps, and the outright murder of native people all over the world.

You may feel that my logic is "absurd", but history doesn't lie.

No NOT absurd to some. That's up to you if you don't want to persue that option. If you do, then you do. If not, then oh well. *shrugs*

So it's okay for the government to bestow certain perks to a group of people. Just don't let that group of people be a majority.

What? Ok, let's get this straight: "NA" like to be recognized as each their own "nation". The Charokee Nation, the Apache Nation, etc. So it's OK for all of these "somewhat related nations" to kill eachother, but when an outside "nation" comes in, it's wrong? Am I the only one who things this is absolutely absurd?

So in your words, only white people can fight with white people. Only black people can fight with black people. Only green people can fight with green people? Wow. You're one racist bastard.

Claims not disputed. I never said whitey was friendly. I said before whitey, the NA were slaughtering eachother. But that was OK, because it was just infighting. Shit.

And? I've never disputed this. I am making an issue with the fact that you seem to think it's fine for one land masses native inhabitants to kill eachother, but it's wrong for someone from another land mass to come fight too. This is what is so hard to swallow.

So in your words, it's fine for WWI and WWII Germany to invade all of Europe, because they share the same land mass and skin tone? That's ok? It's ok for WWI Italy to invade also, because they're also of "similar" skin tones, and share the same continent?

Bwhahahahah. Surely you jest? History doesn't lie? "History" is "truth" as told by the winner. You seldom hear the loser's side of the story. On a related vein, there are always two sides to a story, at least.

The fact of the matter is, if WWI or WWII were won by the "bad guys", then that would be the "right way" as viewed by current history. History would have been told differently if they'd won.

For that matter, there is still dispute on the WWII German U-Boat sinking. The Germans claim that they fired upon a vessel containing ammunitions. The US claims it was a passenger ship, and thus entered the war.

In fact they're both right. But the "right view" as your "truthful history" would tell you, is that it was an innocent passenger ship. It wasn't. It was a ship full of passengers and muntions. That's what America did. They packed civillian ships full of munitions and sent them over to Britian full of civillians.

But hey, what do I know, history doesn't lie, right?

Quzah.

Rich people and tax-breaks say "Hi".

Quzah.

Well, why would the "majority" get certain perks, when they are the ones who already HAVE the perks?

If those who are part of the "minority" weren't considered less than the "majority" (in value) in the first place, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion (meaning no one would be complaining about certain people getting special treatment, etc.).

Ok, so how long is "good enough" for whitey to pay NA? 100 more years? Five more years? 500 more years? 1000 more years? You do realize that "whitey" isn't going to be the majority for long. Oh, wait, they're actually not anyway. They're just considered that because of business percentage or something.

Anyway, back to the topic: Soon, (I've seen it quoted, but 50% of statistics are just made up anyway,) "whitey" will not be a majority. The prediction is that soon there won't be any "white" people. Give it a few more decades. Say 100 years. What then? There are no more "whities", and then should the government still pay the NA? Why?

As long as there is traceable DNA to detect some "whitey" ancestory, should someone be paying the NA? When is the deadline?

But naturally you won't see the point. That's fine.

Quzah.

That's not what I was saying. That's only how you are reading it.



Yes...you are.



I supposed I'm trying to understand why it's ok for a culture of people to come in and destroy another's way of living JUST BECAUSE of infighting. You haven't given any other reason as to why "whitey" had the right to come into NA territory and destroy lives besides, "Well, they fought among each other...why not?!?"

How should *I* know? That will be up to the payers, won't it?



Ah, finally the US will catch up with the rest of the world.




Again, this needs to be asked of those paying out reparations.

Care to explain that one? This should be good...

Your putting words in my mouth, Juju, shame on you. I never said I didn't believe them. All I said is I don't believe *all*(go back and read it) queers are predisposed to it.
I work with a woman that's now 63. At 18 she married a great guy that was a few years older, in a semi-arranged Italian marriage. After they were married for a few weeks and hadn't consumated the marriage, he told her he was gay and they divorced. Twisted her head pretty good. She reasoned that if her husband didn't want her she must be a lesbian. So she became a lesbian, worked at it and now she regrets it and feels it was a mistake because it didn't bring her happiness. Now this woman is obviously an exception (I guess?) and pretty screwed up but it is a true case up being coersed or pushed into her sexual choice by events surrounding her life.
I'm convinced that a child can be "formed" to make a choice that isn't what they would do if they'd been left alone.
For me personally (and it seems a preponderance of people) being hetrosexual was not a choice. If you say it was for you, fine. I believe you.:)

It's quite obvious why, because they were conqueroring land. What's not to understand there? It's the same reason the NA fought with eachother. War and the spoils there of.

Generally when groups of people decide to conquer eachtother, they don't sit down and have weighty philosophical discussions on why they are doing it. I imagine it went something like:

"Hey, they have land. I have guns."
"Hey they have hot chicks. I have a better bow and arrow."
"Hey, that's good hunting there."
"Hey, you stole my pig." (Yeah, this is a real example.)

On that note, I have never made that point that: "Whitey attacked the NA because they figured, 'Hey, they're doing it, why not?'."

My point was: How is it wrong for Whitey to fight with the NA when it is not wrong for the NA to fight amongst themselves? Why is it OK for NA to fight eachother's nations but it is not OK for an outsider to do the same?

That is the issue that you so frequently attempt to sidestep. I've made that point quite clear multiple times.

I just did. See above. It's quite clear. You're missing the point, it's plainly obvious. I just haven't figured out if you're intentionally missing it yet.

Quzah.

So I guess you're saying that regardless of reason, people fighting each other is just plain wrong. Ok then.




*shrugs* Because I just didn't see how the two were the same, that's all. Not a huge deal..at least it wasn't supposed to be one.



Wow...I don't see the issue the same way as you and now that's called "sidestepping"...interesting. I gave you my reasons why *I* thought the two issues were different. Perhaps now YOU are missing MY point...and you know what? It's.ok. Really...it is.

My 2 cents- I don't see the Indian tribes and the foreign groups as being so different in that time frame. The tribes were different from each other in as many ways as they were the same. The foreign groups were different from each other also. They spoke different languages, different religions, customs, foods, etc.
There was no "Politically Correct" thinking on either side. That's for people who don't have to worry where their next meal is coming from. Back then, all the people involved, red, white, black and brown, believed you could have what you could take and hold. Survival was then name of the game. The losers didn't cry the blues about injustice, they looked for someone weaker to beat up.

Were the losers treated badly? yes.
Were the slaves treated badly? yes.
Is it my fault? NO. I had nothing to do with anything that went on before I was born. Anyone that profited from the mistreatment of either group didn't leave me a cent, so I didn't profit indirectly either. I ain't paying reparations to anyone.

The college kids are at home for Thanksgiving. This happens every year. (check the activity light on the router. Someone isn't using your bandwith to download up-yer-skirt-super-webcam again, are they?)

My own experience involved cold sweats and stomach cramps.

but yeah, it's scary.

yes you did.


You're white. If you were Native, you'd be on a reservation, and wouldn't be doing well enough to have filled your home with all those "doodads" . White males like you and I "start on third base", as jinx frequently reminds me.

BUT:

Dar·win·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (därw-nzm)
n.

A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
______________________________________

This is where it all comes from. Man in general, just like Gorillas, Lions, Wolves, etc. are subject to natural selection. Look at the empires gone by. Rome. England. Germany. A subset or race or nation of people takes over the land of weaker subsets in order to increase the size of THEIR population, resources and wealth. Some assimilate the loser, some enslave, some attemot to exterminate. The Moors immediately mated with all of the indigenous females of breeding age. The Romans enslaved and subjected the loser to their laws. Hitler was busy eliminating them all together.

The Native Americans refused to assimilate, so they were quarantined on reservations. More humane than exterminating them, but it has the same effect. Instead of two cultures mingling and being the stronger for it, they were put into museums for us to marvel at.

The unfortunate thing for the NA's was that they were technologically unadvanced, and eventually outnumbered. Their lifestyle required more land per capita than the pre industrial Europeans, and meant that there were less of them to fight the white man.

All this said, I'm sorry, but the Native Americans lost. Sad for them, but again, THEY LOST. you don't pay the loser. He lost. This is the real world. Sucks to say it, and I sound like FileNotFound, but that's my opinion on the matter.


I should add that I'm not saying the "white man" is stronger or smarter than the Native American, or any other race. Just that at the end of the day, that's how it is. I would hope that my opinion would be the same if I was of another race, but then who can say?

.....er, that's all I have to say about that.......

Depends on how you look at it. I think the Whites killing off Native Americans is rather different than, say, the Germans killing off the French. Both situations suck...no doubt about that. But in the case of the Native Americans, not only were cultures being eliminated, but an entire race as well.

As a real life example, the various African tribes were killing each other before Europeans colonized the continent. Now I don't know about you, but I'd say that the Europeans going in there, killing people, taking people away and stealing resources was incredibly wrong, much worse than African tribes killing each other...or the various European nationalities killing each other.

And in the end, the Native Americans were killed in part b/c of who they were...and nearly annihilated. And even if they did go peacefully, many of them were still fucked by the government.

So like I said earlier in this thread...given what happened to them, what they get now seems fair.

As an aside, while institutions like the Bureau of Indian Affairs "work" with all Native Americans, a lot of the nitty gritty between Native Americans and the various levels of government is handled on a tribal level.

Who knows? Possibly forever. The situation with the Native Americans is unique compared to the other minorities in this country.

So what do you think will happen then? Do you think that whites will become the persecuted minority?

I doubt it. One can be a minority and still discriminate against the majority. One needs only to look at apartheid-era South Africa.

Jimbo, you make some good points; however, let me ask you this...who was the real loser in the end? The Native Americans, who certainly got their asses whupped (minus Custer and a few other battles)...or Whites, who missed a golden opportunity to learn about new and different cultures?

But we both understand they werent the least bit interested in learning about new cultures then. That may be different now.

The evolution of the two cultures has not ended. Before it's over, NAs may very well beat the (white) man at his own game.....with the applause of white men.

How many people would like to see the SC uphold the treaty with the NAs regarding taxes and the sale of cigarettes? I would. Did the US gov't make the treaty stating that they wouldnt be liable to collect and pay taxes of the US gov't (Fed, state, local)? If I'm not mistaken, they did. Will they honor it? People of all colors will be watching as they screw the NAs again by not doing so.

Please understand I have empathy for the NAs. I think it's really funny though, that the US gov't stacks the deck against them even while it supposedly is a friendlier more thoughtful gov't now.

[rant] If they made the treaty, they should just fuck off and stop hassling them over the cigarette taxes lost, that were not crucial to the (white) man's society at the time of the signing of the legal agreement[/rant]

signed

EvilWhiteMale

Well until we all are viewed as equal, consider me a gay indian. I'm going to marry my father so that when he leaves this world he can bestow to me the smoke shoppe, free indian house, and land without me having to pay those pesky estate taxes.

Wait my fathers already passed.

I'm still gay, but I'm now female and I'm going to marry my mom.

The Native americans clearly lost. clearly.

We did learn about their new and different culture, decided that they were savages, and as with most good christian societies, we had the responsibility under GOD to convert them, get them drunk, and pigeon hole them.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Yeah, the white US Gov. made the deals and signed the treaty giving NA's limited sovereignty over themselves, which in turn gives them the right to open casino's. We're still bound by those treaties. That's life. Whether it was a mistake or not is redundant. The deal is done. Gay marriage and homosexuality in general is an increasingly open issue.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On the subject of reparations, my ancestry goes back to an interesting case. It seems my last name (White) originated with a half-NA half-white guy that was the illegitimate son of a white man and his Indian slave woman. I tried to offer to pay myself for the injustices my ancestor committed but I felt that since I personally had nothing to do with them it wouldn't be right to take payment for them. Especially since I haven't had that type of injustice committed against me personally. In the end I just shook my hand and both sides agreed to never be part of anything like my ancestor had.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I know this is a few pages back, but I wanted to comment and respond. That's the joy of message boards, you can do that.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Can you elaborate? A couple of millennia ago Alexander the Great was considered kind when he wiped out (Thebes I think?), killed the men and enslaved the women and children. We had slavery in this country just a couple of centuries back. Death by hanging was choice because it could take awhile, then somebody figured out the 13 knot method of tying it. Electrocution was picked up because it was thought to be excruciating. My point is that the world seems to be better overall. So why is it more sinister?

I am speaking of the depravity of the heart of individuals. So many people desire to live their lives without any regard to God or His purpose for them. They make their own rules...their own morality...

There is no right or wrong. No absolutes. Right has become "what is right for me...wrong is what is wrong for me". Many say that "truth" is merely what you believe to be true.

However, it is my belief that there is a moral right and wrong, and it is unchanging because it has it's origin in God and He is unchanging.

I know that society likes to modify and change and rename whatever does not suit them, and for the most part...there is nothing that can be done to change that. As long as evil exists in this world through the presence of satan, man will continue to spiral downward...not collectively, but individually. Not all, but definitely those who choose to look to their own hearts and desires to form their specially tailored belief system.

This is a dark world that we live in, IMO. Years ago, people did not lock their doors. Children walked to school without fear of abduction, etc. Role models were not scantily clad teenagers.

Our methods may have changed, but not necessarily our motive. Selfishness, greed, fame, fortune, etc. This is what drives most people. As long as we are a people who primarily want only to serve ourselves and advance our own agenda, we will continue to fall short of the mark. (IMO, based on my christian beliefs)

Yes we did.

We also assumed that marriage would be between a man and a woman.

Should we have signed a treaty or made a law saying only man and woman could marry? Then would we have been right?

How is saying indians (oh I'm sorry native americans, I'm from oklahoma home of indian gaming not NA gaming) are going to be treated special different than saying man and woman married are going to be treated special? You call one reparations and the other discrimination, yet they both are clear examples of discrimination (limited membership if you will) to me.

I say if we want equal rights for everybody lets give EVERYBODY equal rights.

But instead we pick and choose who to be included into what rights. If we keep doing that this battle will never end.

Only if the government stops discrimination against *ALL* people by limiting benefits to people that meet a certain criteria will I support gay marriage.

And what criteria would that be?

So....your name is Whit White? Maybe even....Whit U. White?

Next you'll be telling us you arent really from the hills.

I live on a hill, if that helps.

Re: Re: For what it's worth...
 

I'm sorry this reply comes so late...Thanksgiving and all, ya know.


True...we do not all have the same beliefs. Everyone has a right to their own belief/opinion, etc. God has given us all free will, the right to choose whatever path we would like to take. Does He have a plan for what that path should be? I believe so.

If it were against the law to eat meat on Fridays, then as a christian, I would abide by that law because it does not contradict any law that God has for me. Might I want to eat meat on Friday...maybe, but I would not. The same goes for the pork law and the psychiatry law. The Bible teaches that we are under the authority of the government, and unless the government makes a law that contradicts Biblical teaching, I am to uphold that law. That is what I believe. That is what I teach my children.


I think you are missing my point. It is probably my fault...it is always late when I am on the computer. If it were against the law to worship God, I would worship Him anyway. That would be a law that would contradict scripture.

If there was a law that said I must bow down every day and worship a fish stick, I would not...no matter what the consequences. That would definitely be a law that would contradict scripture...and would also be just plain silly.

I do not understand why it is so hard to see why christians would not support or be in favor of anything that is considered a sin against God. I am all for people having rights. God is all for people having choices and rights. One of my rights is to vote and try to put people in office that will uphold my beliefs. Do you think otherwise? Is that not a right that you feel that you have also?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Um, you know, you basicaly just said that if we're not christian than we are sinister... Was this intentional? I'm just curious. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; People were also robbed. So they started locking their doors. Kids were abducted, so people became more careful. Scantily clad teenagers were always ogled. So, we are worse as a people because we are more honest about the world around us? What???
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Not to be a jackass here, but have you read both testments? How 'bout the story of Jonah? He seems to change whenever he feels like it.

I think I really screwed up by allowing some key human inventions. Like the telephone, the internet and the Segway.

As humanity is able to communicate more easily, they compare notes on me.

This is where a substantial part of the problem is, I wasnt consistent with everyone. Now everyone is confused.

Any and all criteria based benefites should be abolished. Until then one group or another will come along and say I want to be included as well.

I guess I'm still bitter about not being able to attend the all catholic girls school.

I might be able to work you a small miracle.

Have you said your prayers lately?