SageAgainstTheMachine

But laws do evolve through necessitation. Society would be pretty screwed up if we still went by the Code of Hammurabi. After all, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. And I believe there are sections in the code which make sure to regard slaves as less than human. And new laws have to be created due to evolving circumstances. We certainly have laws against child pornography, insurance fraud, and doing LSD. None of those things had much relevance in the ancient days, so it is incorrect to say that "most laws, if not all laws" have their basis in the ten commandments.

But that's just thing, I don't like the labels. See, I didn't register with a party, and I consider myself to be a pragmatist more than a liberal or a conservative. If a certain side of an issue makes sense to me, I'll support it regardless of whether its traditionally "liberal" or "conservative". Gay marriage? Makes sense. Welfare checks for single mothers who work 50 hours a week and still can't feed their 3 kids? Makes sense. Invading Iraq? Doesn't make sense. A troop surge? Makes sense. Abortion? DEFINITELY doesn't make sense. I've always thought it's better to examine your own political leanings on a case-by-case basis.

Ok here's my point. Obviously, we have a law that states a person cannot kill another person. Also, the ten commandments state "thou shall not kill". That doesn't mean the law exists BECAUSE of the commandment. Had the Bible never been written, all societies would still hand down punishments for things like murder, stealing, rape, etc. That's why countries that aren't predominately Christian have largely the same types of violations deemed illegal. And I'm not really sure where you're going with the Constitution. I'm going through the amendments in my head and I can't think of one that's even remotely religious. Illegal search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Free speech? Cruel and unusual punishment? Direct election of senators? While the ten commandments are an instruction for morality, the Constiution doesn't really project morality on the population, it gives rights to the masses.

Besides, nobody is FORCING kids to recite the pledge of allegiance in school. When the Iraq War first started, some kids in my class didn't want to recite the pledge out of protest, so they didn't have to. It's the same principle for "under god". Kids can recite the pledge in class and just not include "under god" if they don't like it. That's what I used to do. Or they can choose not to recite it. It's called free will. There's no reason that people with faith should have it taken away from them just because some parents think their kids are too big of pu*sies to deal with it. Though pragmatically, the religious kids wouldn't exactly suffer either, it would just be a minor inconvenience, and that's why I think it's a dumb issue to begin with.

If you've never played a game of midnight basketball, try it sometime cuz it's pretty fun. And when would you prefer him to play? When he's supposed to be working?

Meh, she used to be a 9, then she went down to a 5, now she's back to a 7 but nothing incredible.

Laws regarding theft, marriage, murder, etc tend to originate from good old fashioned common sense. Steal something? Go to jail. Murder someone? Go to jail for much longer. Common sense affects the tenets of both government and religion, which is why we tend to find so many commonalities, but when laws are made, we don't open up the Bible or any other religious document.

Ok thanks for clearing that up, it just sounded to me like you were espousing that kind of thing when you were suggesting that the wall between church and state ought not exist. And yes, children should not be suspended for praying in school. That is a violation of their constitutional right.

The whole pledge of allegiance thing is just a dumb argument from both sides of the fence. Who gets hurt if we leave "god" in the pledge? Nobody. Who gets hurt if we take "god" out of the pledge? Nobody. But I'm unclear on something, are you suggesting that values from religious texts ought to be included in our legal system? That opens up a whole can of worms, seeing as the United States has no official religion.

Well I think that precedents can speak as loudly as written laws. Until FDR came along, nobody had to write down the 2-term limit for Presidents. We separate church and state because it is an American tradition, even if it isn't written anywhere.

Well it's the 6th now, so we are in the clear.

Right now, the Eastern Conference as a whole has 34 overtime/shootout losses, while the Western Conference as a whole only has 16. If the East, points-wise, looks a lot stronger than the West, this is the reason why.

Because, from where are we ever going to get the answer?

The Gunpowder, treason and plot I can think of no reason Why the Gunpowder Treason Should ever be forgot I'll assume your avatar isn't a coincidence?

Well in 1802, Jefferson described the first amendment as a wall of separation between church and state, and the Supreme Court has used the quotation often in their proceedings. Even if it is not the official law of the land, we do have separation of church and state in the sense that our laws are not affected by any specific religious doctrine. In most of the Muslim world, laws are considered valid for no other reason than their inclusion in the Ku'ran. It is quite different here.

While that is probably true, there is nothing to suggest that Jesus, Mohammad or Vishnu have any more control over your life than Zeus, Artemis, Athena, and the rest of the gang. And yes there have been holy wars regarding our modern religions, but if you think there haven't been wars fough over the more archaic religions as well, then you are wrong. But alas, what you said at the end there is most definitely true. We are probably more insignficant than we could ever know. We will all have to wait until death to get the answers to our questions, if we ever do get the answers. Personally, I don't see a pragmatic reason to believe in an after-life, but here's to hoping I'm wrong! After all, I'm just as curious as the next guy.

Which is largely similar to the Old Testament of the Bible, no? It's certainly not a "modern" document by any stretch, and a large reason that the Middle East has failed to become modern itself is that it bases its laws and regulations on its religion. Thankfully, we have separation of church and state here in America. And every archaic text is written in the most obnoxious way, there was no political correctness back then. Of course, certain Suras deal with nothing but guidelines, but there is definitely a code for morality in there.

Well my parents are both atheists, so it's more a part of my identity than most people. I was always the only kid in my class who never got Christmas presents/easter baskets and stuff. I guess that's where the certain amount of pride comes from, pride for my background. And I don't think atheist means that I "don't believe in anything". I believe that something, at some point, created the Earth and the Universe. I believe that we, as humans, are incapable of understanding whatever that force was and are foolish for trying. But for those who believe there is a "god" watching over us at all times, those are the people I disagree with. See, I think that it is foolish to believe that there is a god out there who is somehow invested in our well being. I believe that god is a creation of man and not the other way around. There was a time on Earth before humans existed, and there will be a time when humans are gone. And yet most world religions insist that god created humans in his image. And I do agree with you that certain portions of the Bible have a very solid moral backing. But I believe that's true of most religious texts. I've read most of the Bible, most of the Ku'ran, among other readings. If you subtract the specific beliefs about differing gods, prophets, etc. it all boils down to the same message of being kind to your fellow man. I guess what really gets to me is how people use their faith to justify believing in something which they have absolutely no physical evidence for. Fact is, nobody knows if there is a god, or (if there is) what god's nature is. In fact, I suppose my theological beliefs are more in according with agnosticism. Because for me to assert that there is, without a doubt, no god is just as bad as the people who believe for no other reason than blind faith. But, yes, I am proud that I haven't bought into any of the religions that most people practice. I tend to think that 2,000 years from now, Christianity and Islam and Judaism and Hinduism will all be looked upon as nothing more than mythologies. After all, nobody prays to Zeus anymore. So I'm more inclined to marry an agnostic woman (or at least find one who isn't interested in being married in a church) and try my best to let my children know that having no religion is just as viable an option as believing in something.

Nope, not yet. Gonna watch online tomorrow. Any good?

And in the words of Kevin Kline from A Fish Called Wanda...Don't call me stupid. Or dumb, or dense, or moron, or retard (you use that one a lot and it offends me because I have a disabled brother). In fact, you tend to call a lot of people stupid on these boards. That, to me, doesn't say too much about your own intelligence.

Just please tell me what "flew over my head". I'm genuinely curious.

Most didn't want him to fail. That would mean that they weren't wanting what was best for the country. They simply thought he was doing a piss poor job. There's a difference.

By the way, if the thing that "flew over my head" is my asking if Reid and Murtha were on this board, I wasn't being serious. I made a comment on the conservatives on this board, and Joe6 rebutted it by referring to the comments Reid and Murtha. I'm not that dumb.

What, pray tell, flew over my head? And I love how you use the word atheist as if it's supposed to be some sort of biting insult. I'm proud of it, you saying that is not a slap in the face.

Ok maybe some people did want Bush to fail. I wasn't one of them. But to all those who so much as questioned Bush, many Republicans retorted with "You have to respect the decisions of the President and show your support for them, or else you are Unamerican." Will those Republicans prove themselves hypocrites and not support Obama?