"Why I voted for Bush"

[Ben Kenobi]

Well Ben, it's amazingly obvious how Christians use government to impose their religion on others so I didn't think you needed case examples. Try the following: drugs, prostitution, gambling, booze (prohibition) and blue laws, homosexuality, abortion, porn, welfare, etc... And that's just recent US history after the Church lost alot of power...

Okay, now we've got a grab bag of issues here. Best to go over each one in turn.

1. Drugs have many opponents who oppose drugs not on grounds of their religious teachings, but rather, over the health and welfare of others. They consider the costs to society of addiction, which takes a variety of forms, including property damage, due to an increased number of thefts.

It seems to me rather lopsided to say that those who are against the legalisation of drugs are motivated only by their religious teachings.

Secondly, suppose you include the prohibition among these members. Do understand that Christianity does not forbid everyone from drinking, but rather, for those who have problems drinking, they ought not to be encouraged to drink.

Therefore, if one is to say that the Prohibitionists were motivated solely by religious inclinations, they could not be Christians.

2. Prostitution.

This is an interesting issue. You will often find two groups of people united in their opposition to prostitution, some religious groups, and also some feminists.

Now, this to me is a clue that there is something more going on. Why would the feminists be opposed to prostitution. Generally, this is because the women involved in prostitution are generally victims, of either debt or drug addiction, and turn to prostitution in order to support their habits.

So that's hardly a religious motivation to oppose prostitution, and one grounded on the principles, that we should not take advantage of these women for profit.

3. Gambling

You'll find folks on the church on either side, and again, an interesting grab bag of interests opposed to gambling. Many are the social welfare folks who see gambling hurt poor people by putting them in debt, or a bad influence, as a font for organised crime.

4. Prohibition has been dealt with above.

5. Blue laws, same as prostitution.

6. homosexuality.

Finally a good point.

Do know, that gay marriage can't be included in this. Restrictions on sodomy, have a much better case, yet you will also find religious folks, who say that while their church may oppose sodomy, that it is not the role of the state to enforce such restrictions.

So to say that the church seeks to impose their laws, is not really accurate, for many in the church do not agree with this position.

7. Abortion

If the unborn child is a person, then we should not kill that person, and opposition to abortion need not be rooted to religious faith.

8. Porn, has already been referred to above.

9. Welfare.

If you know the church's position on welfare, please let me know. I'd be sincerely interested!

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes.

I guess you forgot about that whole 9/11 thing

No, I didn't. If you don't understand the meaning of the words I used, just ask.

Most people come out and say exactly what they think in direct language instead of playing silly games.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but it pretty much sucks, in any case.

[Atahualpa]

If the unborn child is a person, then we should not kill that person, and opposition to abortion need not be rooted to religious faith.

that'd imply killing is immoral, which makes it again a religious issue

[DinoDoc]

I prefer playing with people who ride the short bus. It makes them feel better. There's actually a very good reason why I didn't include the example you suggested in the comparison. It's irrelevent to the comparison.

[Ted Striker]

That's nice.

You still haven't made any sort of meaningful point though.

[DinoDoc]

Pot meet Kettle.

[Ted Striker]

I made my points based on actual events.

You attempted a hypothetical based on speculation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I made my points based on actual events.

What point?

You attempted a hypothetical based on speculation.

My hypothetical as you so quaintly called it was and is just based in fact as yours is. Just because you fail to understand the meaning of basic English words and International Law doesn't make my funpost any less valuable than your spam.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Pot meet Kettle.

So you are saying that he isn't making a meaningful point when he says you aren't making a meaningful point? Yet, you are saying you are guilting of the same crime: not making a meaningful point. Which implies that in fact he was making a meaningful point. Your statement is inherently contradicting itself.

Anyhow, you haven't indicated why you don't include 9/11 as a violation of U.S. territory, or at least as something of equal magnitude.

-Drachasor

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Anyhow, you haven't indicated why you don't include 9/11 as a violation of U.S. territory, or at least as something of equal magnitude.

I really loathe to use the dictionary in posts. It's too pedantic but there seems to be little choice. The key word from my post you two refugees from the short bus seem to have missed:
invade: To enter by force in order to conquer

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What point?

You were criticizing Carter's handling of the hostage crisis. Which is ridiculous considering all of the hostages were released. Especially after there was already one botched rescue attempt. The POINT was that the hostages were released, plain and simple, calling for "action," we never know what would have happened, but Carter determined that taking more action would have put their lives at risk.

Perhaps you would have preferred an outcome like the recent tragedy in the Russian school?

hypothetical as you so quaintly called it was and is just based in fact as yours is.

You can't based something that never happened (Carter using or not using force again to free hostages) as "fact."

Just because you fail to understand the meaning of basic English words and International Law doesn't make my funpost any less valuable than your spam.

Shore thang prefessor!!!

But I can say things directly without playing peek-a-boo. Thanks.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I really loathe to use the dictionary in posts. It's too pedantic but there seems to be little choice. The key word from my post you two refugees from the short bus seem to have missed:
invade: To enter by force in order to conquer

Which is absolutley meaningless in the greater context of what we are talking about.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Which is absolutley meaningless in the greater context of what we are talking about.

Well, he won the semantics battle, but lost the war.

-Drachasor

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
But I can say things directly without playing peek-a-boo. Thanks.

It wouldn't be nearly as fun for me if I simply explained myself immediately to everybody that asked a stupid question.

Which is absolutley meaningless in the greater context of what we are talking about.

You weren't really talking about anything of real import. Only responding to my trolling of Boshko's statement re: Carter. And actually gave support for it after a fashion in your zeal to say something bad about Bush.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It wouldn't be nearly as fun for me if I simply explained myself immediately to everybody that asked a stupid question.

Which is absolutley meaningless in the greater context of what we are talking about.

You weren't really talking about anything of real import. Only responding to my trolling of Boshko's statement re: Carter. And actually gave support for it after a fashion in your zeal to say something bad about Bush.

Due to your high academic standards requirements, it sure does boggle my mind that you would support someone who could botch basic grammar and reasoning skills with such fever.

But next time I will look up proper semantics on the InternetS



It won't matter in a couple of days though when we kick Cheney out of office anyway.