I can't stand the bull**** about 'Shari'a' anymore

[Al B. Sure!]

Oh, you say that you are religious based, but really doesn't mean it for serious ?

Huh?

[BlackCat]

Which is why Christopher Hitchens is reportedly pro-life? Abortion is an issue in which one position is strongly associated with religiosity. That does not make it a strictly religious issue. Religious people in the US are also more likely to support homeschooling and gun ownership. That doesn't mean you need to believe in Jesus or Allah or L. Ron Hubbard to teach your own kid or own a Glock.

BS. Christianity doesn't say anything about owning a glock or for that matter anything about homeschooling.

Very low and very badly, respectively. However, you said our laws were religiously based, not that our populace is prejudiced against the irreligious. Two entirely different things.

Elok, you can't be serius - what you claim is that the elected doesn't represent their voters. I consider you as intelligent enough to see that it can't be true.

[Al B. Sure!]

Christianity says nothing about abortion either. Where in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt not have an abortion"?

[BlackCat]

Huh?

Work on your English, Amercan. You're translations are screwed up.

[Al B. Sure!]

This is not proper English:

Oh, you say that you are religious based, but really doesn't mean it for serious ?

Can we get a native speaker to confirm that that is not meaningful English?

What are you trying to say? That I say I am not religious-based but that I'm not being serious when I say that? How does that make sense in response to my posts?

[BlackCat]

Christianity says nothing about abortion either. Where in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt not have an abortion"?

Nowhere I guess, but try asking a cleric from any of the cristianity beliefs, and I guess that they can tell you where

[Wezil]

EDIT: Wiki says Hitchens believes a fetus is an unborn child, but for some reason endorses medical (drug-based, non-surgical) abortion. Makes no sense to me, but anyway, he's apparently pro-life to some weird extent.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2003/02/hitchens200302

[BlackCat]

This is not proper English:

Oh, you say that you are religious based, but really doesn't mean it for serious ?

Can we get a native speaker to confirm that that is not meaningful English?

What are you trying to say? That I say I am not religious-based but that I'm not being serious when I say that? How does that make sense in response to my posts?

For obvious reasons I can't answer, but I want to secure this gem for posterity

[Elok]

BS. Christianity doesn't say anything about owning a glock or for that matter anything about homeschooling.

Actually, you could take a religious position for or against either of those things. And there are a good number of religiously pro-choice folks (the nauseating "Reverend" Al Sharpton comes to mind). Furthermore, Christianity is opposed to, among other things, gang rape, arson, and torture. Are laws against those things intrinsically religious? No. You do not have to be Christian to oppose those. Or to oppose abortion. Pretty much the only opposition to gay marriage comes from religious objections, so that example holds. Though I guess there might be some people who just think gays are icky or something.

Elok, you can't be serius - what you claim is that the elected doesn't represent their voters. I consider you as intelligent enough to see that it can't be true.

You're just not getting me here. You claimed that our laws were based on religion. This is an entirely different matter from whether our politicians are judged by their apparent religiosity. Kind of like "tons of politicians get elected by promising to cut the deficit" is entirely different from "tons of politicians are hard at work cutting the deficit." I'm not really sure how I can make this more clear than I already have.

Christianity says nothing about abortion either. Where in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt not have an abortion"?

Yes and no. While the Bible makes no clear reference to abortion, the church has been opposed to it from pretty much the get-go. There's a whole slew of church father quotes floating around the internet to that effect. Now, if you're going to insist on Sola Scriptura, that means nothing. But Sola Scriptura sucks.

[Elok]

Nowhere I guess, but try asking a cleric from any of the cristianity beliefs, and I guess that they can tell you where

Ask an American liberal protestant pastor, I give you fifty-fifty odds.

[Elok]

Thanks for the link, Wezil. So he's...pro-choice...ish. Or something. Well, I know there are pro-life atheists, either way.

[Wezil]

Yeah, I wasn't going to try and paraphrase that article.

[Elok]

This is not proper English:

Oh, you say that you are religious based, but really doesn't mean it for serious ?

Can we get a native speaker to confirm that that is not meaningful English?

What are you trying to say? That I say I am not religious-based but that I'm not being serious when I say that? How does that make sense in response to my posts?

It's grammatically incorrect, and when applied to a person "religious-based" would seem to be a redundant construction, if it means anything at all. He seems to be implying that there is no middle to be excluded other than hypocrisy (whereas, if I'm reading you right, you meant that there's a world of difference between the religious tinge of U.S. politics and stoning prostitutes to death).

[BlackCat]

Actually, you could take a religious position for or against either of those things. And there are a good number of religiously pro-choice folks (the nauseating "Reverend" Al Sharpton comes to mind). Furthermore, Christianity is opposed to, among other things, gang rape, arson, and torture. Are laws against those things intrinsically religious? No. You do not have to be Christian to oppose those. Or to oppose abortion. Pretty much the only opposition to gay marriage comes from religious objections, so that example holds. Though I guess there might be some people who just think gays are icky or something.

I really don't care about other things but abortion. That is certainly a religious matter, and has an effect on both voters and elected.

You're just not getting me here. You claimed that our laws were based on religion. This is an entirely different matter from whether our politicians are judged by their apparent religiosity. Kind of like "tons of politicians get elected by promising to cut the deficit" is entirely different from "tons of politicians are hard at work cutting the deficit." I'm not really sure how I can make this more clear than I already have.

Are you seriously saying that those elected doesn't mean what they are elected on ?

[BlackCat]

It's grammatically incorrect, and when applied to a person "religious-based" would seem to be a redundant construction, if it means anything at all. He seems to be implying that there is no middle to be excluded other than hypocrisy (whereas, if I'm reading you right, you meant that there's a world of difference between the religious tinge of U.S. politics and stoning prostitutes to death).

I'm a bit curious - where did I make a fault ?

EDIT: I'm not trying to be obnoxious or like, just want to learn. If you ever tries to write in a foreign language, perhaps danish, I certainly will give all support possible

I won't even consider it a problem if you have had four-five glasses of wine when you try.