For the homosexuals:

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sorry you found the answer I gave so soporific. Which other person who imagines they're infallible did you have in mind ?

Actually I didn't have him in mind at all. As I said earlier, it was the term Christians I have used throughout.

No, it isn't. The title is:

And that changes the fact that you were asked for a list of 'countries that practice capital punishment on the gays?'

Molly, I'm not responsible for the threadjack. I simply followed the topic of the post. You accuse me of 'threadjacking the thread to further my own agenda' well you shouldn't have brought up the subject of a list if you were not prepared to discuss the content of said list.

You brought up Islam, not me.

Indeed, which was my point. A man supposedly concerned for the civil rights of his gay brothers who is silent on the role of Islam?

A large number of 'countries'. Note, no mention is made of any state endorsed religion or political system.

So I posted the list of said countries and commented that the only Islamic state that does not punish homosexuality is Turkey.

Secondly, you posted an inaccurate list of unknown provenance purporting to show Muslim majority countries with the death penalty. Does the death penalty apply to homosexuality in each and all of them ?

I gave the provenance. Stop lying Molly. As for inaccurate, well you'll have to prove that also. Cite the source then, and prove that I was inaccurate in my statement.

If you present a list alleging to show Muslim or Muslim majority countries where the death penalty supposedly applies to homosexuality, or homosexual acts, and it includes an obvious glaring error with the inclusion of a well-known Buddhist country, then how can you expect me to take you at your word ?

And I admitted my mistake and moved on. You should do the same. I asked a question of you if you are willing to accept the other 20 or so countries on the list, that are majority muslim.

After you were questioned about it, and its most obvious error pointed out to you. You gave no such source when you first mentioned it, and as I just said, if you choose to start bandying such lists about with some strange Islam-bashing agenda, then the onus is on you to make sure you get your facts right- wherever you happen to find them.

So you admit now the remainder of the list is valid, and not of 'unknown provenance? I have the source and I did provide the source when asked.

Of course you are. How many more inaccurate, unattributed sources of information were you thinking of introducing to bolster your argument ?

Unattributed? If you really cared about the truth and the honesty of my statement, you would have figured it out by now. It's all there if you want to look it up, but that would mean acknowledging that what I say is factually correct. I can't recall you ever saying this Molly.

Northern Ireland, former Yugoslavia, Uganda...

So Yugoslavia was about Orthodox Christians killing Protestants and Catholics?

I have yet to see any proof from you that the Founders' arguments for independence from the British Empire or the text of the Bill of Rights depend largely or wholly on explicitly Christian values or ideals.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

It's like not seeing the forest for the trees. Do you really wish to defend this thesis that the entire bill of rights and declaration of independence is devoid of Christian influence?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

Thats the declaration, not the bill of rights. You gonna argue with molly, you gotta be precise on details. Relevant or not.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
I'm surprised someone your age still can't do math.

Postulating a 5% growth rate for the population over 10 years (5% is rather large, I think?) on 85,000 people leads to a new population of 138,500 people--or, 50,500 new people.

Speaking of not being able to do math...

Not only is 138,500 - 85,000 = 53,500, but you're also forgetting that growth rate is a combination of death rate and birth rate. There would've been more than 53,500 new people.

Of course, given vaguely realistic figures for the death and birth rates you'd still end up with fewer gay people in the end.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They are permitted to preach Jihad even in the US, aren't they?

It all depends on the wording and evidence of intent. Incitement to riot, conspiracy to commit criminal acts, don't become protected speech if they're uttered in a religious context.

I guess my point is even if they are permitted to practice their religion, they are not permitted to do so in a way in which infringes against the rights of others.

That balancing of rights business is a whole legal can of worms.

Polygamy is another matter, the defense of the law against polygamy explicitly affirms the Christian teaching of marriage. The state argued that it had a responsibility to defend and uphold marriage in barring bigamy and polygamy. Once that is done away with then you have a real question as to why the US ought to be banning those who practice polygamy, who consent to enter the relationships.

Well, there's the question of how consent is defined (i.e. coercion, brainwashing, manipulation, etc.), plus, now that women are legally a bit more than chattels of their fathers/husbands, there's those issues of property rights, child custody rights and support obligations, etc., that are a lot more complex in marriages involving more than two people.

There are restrictions and regulations around the gathering, fire codes and whatnot, where the gathering is restricted for safety reasons. I would be very interested to see additional examples by which the free exercise of religion is regulated for 'valid public interest'.

Ras Tafari You can throw in Indian use of peyote, Santeria, etc. As long as the regulation is based on public policy (i.e. applied consistently out of the religious context), it applies regardless of whether the act is part of a "religious practice."

I don't see the founders saying this at all. They are saying that just as men are free, they ought to be free to worship in the manner of their choosing.

They didn't grant carte blanche to activities in the guise of worship. Sorting out the boundary between protected expression and prohibit conduct was left to a couple of branches of government to sort out.

Yes, but we are seeing infringements on freedom of religion up here in Canada, and some pretty serious ones. I don't believe the state has a right to ban speech within the church, if they don't like the speech. We've had pastors up here charged with hate speech for saying that the bible teaches homosexual acts are sinful, whereas folks are definitely allowed to preach jihad in mosques openly.

There's always a lot of wiggle room in how you word things. Maybe the hellfire and brimstone messages need to be better packaged? Maybe the jihadis aren't quite defining it in terms of blowing up infidels?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Ras Tafari You can throw in Indian use of peyote, Santeria, etc. As long as the regulation is based on public policy (i.e. applied consistently out of the religious context), it applies regardless of whether the act is part of a "religious practice."

ben may not be aware but the Peyote case was pretty bitterly contested, and congress was deeply dissatisfied with that and several other SCOTUS cases that narrowed the right to worship, and as a result passed the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" in an attempt to protect a wider range of activies by statute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Actually I didn't have him in mind at all.

Evidently you had someone in mind, unless you're attempting to be disingenuous.

Or do you simply make posts for the sake of making them ?

And that changes the fact that you were asked for a list of 'countries that practice capital punishment on the gays?'

It certainly changes what you said- do you read your own posts ?

No, but the thread is about "countries with capital punishment for gay men.

The thread is still about what it was when it was made.

Molly, I'm not responsible for the threadjack.

Oh my. Who brought up Islam ? That would have been you, wouldn't it ?

Right here, in this post:

Molly:

I can make a list too:

With that inaccurate list of yours.

And who then steered the discussion towards Christianity-v-Islam, the World Title Fight For Most Tolerant Of Homosexuality! That was you too, wasn't it ?

And who then posted about how he thought democracy sprang from supposedly Christian ideals ?

You again.

I simply followed the topic of the post.

No, you didn't. You chose to focus on just a small part of one of my posts and then presumed to make a post based on your misreading of my post.

What is the meaning of 'could', as in 'could make a list' or 'could post a list' ?

Used with hypothetical or conditional force

You then presumed that I would make some favourable distinction between Christianity's treatment of homosexuality and Islam's treatment of homosexuaity. Based on nothing but your personal feelings towards me, it seems.

A man supposedly concerned for the civil rights of his gay brothers who is silent on the role of Islam?

How am I silent ? How do you know what I campaign on in my private life ? You don't, so stop making inaccurate assumptions about me.

So I posted the list of said countries and commented that the only Islamic state that does not punish homosexuality is Turkey.

You posted a list of unknown origin, and then said in the next post :

Majority Muslim countries without imprisonment or the death penalty = 1

Quite why you'd expect me to comment on a list I've never seen before, which is clearly of dubious accuracy and which you post to back up a misconceived reading of one of my posts, beggars all belief.

I gave the provenance.

Only after you were tasked about it!

You didn't place it in the post you put the list in, or the one after, and you simply said on the next page (!) after a post of mine pointing out the list's obvious glaring error:

It's from Wikipedia, that tremendously anti-gay biased source.

Dear me, not exactly posting etiquette, is it ?

Stop lying Molly.

Don't make false accusations. You did post a list of unknown provenance. Even now, your original post shows no source for the list.

As for inaccurate, well you'll have to prove that also.

Here's how it works: you start a threadjack with a list then the burden of proof is on you.

Is the list not inaccurate ? Is not Sri Lanka a majority Buddhist country ?

Yes or no, Ben ?

The 1981 Census from Sri Lanka can be found here:

http://www.lankalibrary.com/

Buddhists- 69.3 % of the population.

This site says slightly fewer of the population are Buddhists:

Sri Lanka has today about 6.5 million Buddhists, which is about sixty-five percent of her total population.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/perera/wheel100.html#sect-47

By the way, that's an example of how to show the provenance of a list, fact or quote in a post.

I asked a question of you if you are willing to accept the other 20 or so countries on the list, that are majority muslim.

You show me more accurate evidence on the punishment for homosexuality in Muslim majority states (with provenance) and then I might.

So you admit now the remainder of the list is valid,

No. Read my post more slowly, if it helps.

and (is) not of 'unknown provenance?

Look, as far as we know we have only your word for it that you 'found it' on Wikipedia. You still haven't posted an off-site link to this list.

We still don't even know who made this list, why and when. Someone who thinks the Buddha converted to Islam perhaps- after attaining Nirvana ?

Unattributed?

Are we to believe that the Wikipedia 'made the list' itself ?

It's all there if you want to look it up, but that would mean acknowledging that what I say is factually correct. I can't recall you ever saying this Molly.

Firstly, as I've said before, if you post information as part of a threadjack, the obligation is upon you to make sure that the information you post is

a) accurate

b) of known provenance

Secondly, when you say something 'factually correct' instead of outright lies like this:

I'm talking about those strange folks in America (oh wait you hate them too, can't mention 'murricans')

then perhaps, just perhaps, I'll admit you're 'factually correct'.

By the way, who else, along with Americans, am I meant to 'hate' ?

So Yugoslavia was about Orthodox Christians killing Protestants and Catholics?

The war in former Yugoslavia did indeed involve Orthodox Christians killing Roman Catholics, and vice versa, and Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians killig Muslims, and vice versa. Religious or 'faith' sites of world and local significance were deliberately targeted.

I'm not sure where you have this strange notion of Protestants playing the same kind of part in the killing in former Yugoslavia. Lack of knowledge of the conflict ?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

But all men aren't 'created equal' and at the time of writing that, all men didn't include black men or Roman Catholics.

In any case, how is that explicitly or only a Christian sentiment ?

Do you really wish to defend this thesis that the entire bill of rights and declaration of independence is devoid of Christian influence?

Please point out where exactly I've said anything of the sort, or presented that as a thesis.

Are you now going to attempt to put it to some kind of fractional distillation test to work out the percentages of 'inspiration' involved ?

How about remembering the many discussions the Founders had about pre-Christian Greek and Roman city states and Republicanism ?

The Whig theory of contract ?

Deist views on natural law ?

Jefferson's keen interest in pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon laws and rights ?

The Amphictyonic Council ?

Two can play at this game.