bigtexan

No - just passionate - just wanted to make sure we were not going down a dark road...

I would hate to think we would end up unable to shake hands and enjoy skydiving together. It is not my intent to anger you - nor do I beleive your intent is to do such with me - but I think we both get passionate on this topic - and that is good we have our passions - just this one is different in focus - the skydiving aligns.

I am not telling you how to vote - I am saying you have a responsibility to keep your religion to your self - as you were given the freedom to practice any religion you choose. You were given the freedom to practice your religion with out restriction (for the most part).. that for the most part means you cannot subvert our laws to enforce your religous specific views. to answer your question directly - I would oppose anyone whos views were based on unsound reasoning - and whos proposed policies were self serving. Christian views are self serving - they serve the christian community alone and deprive other communities their right to exist within their own beliefe system - I would oppose any views that cause harm to or hinder the freedoms for society in general. --Actually - I think you are the one that need a lesson in FREEDOM!

Is America a Christian Nation - Gratis - nice read.

You really need to learn the difference between a religous viewpoint and a 'good for society in general' viewpoint. Just because your religion happens to align with some 'good for society in general' viewpoints does not mean it aligns on ALL such viewpoints.

Yo.. you already got a huge break - right there in the first article in the bill of rights. hello? you seem to be missing the point. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE YOUR CHRISTIAN VIEWS ON OTHERS! Yet - your group keeps trying to and then whinning about why you cannot. gheesch.. give ME a break!

vote your conscience - or vote your religion? their separate - yet the same - i understand - but you should take care to not vote your religion for religous sake. and it's not a feeling - imagine if a religion you didn't like gained control of our government. Keeping the government as free from religion as possible is a good thing; for everyone including yourself.

I can answer this for ya... Go XP - Vista will take a couple of years to come to maturity. I personally program (visual studio) and use mathematica etc.. These apps work well and are nicely supported on XP .. So are the Java tool kits etc.. Vista is pretty - but you will have problems, simply random problems that will detract from your focus on these topics and might I add - that programming and mathematics are quite 'jealous suitors' they want all of your time. Don't loose focus on your task finding out your program is glitching on Vista - when it most likely will function without glitches on XP. JMHO with some 25 years of experiance behind it. As always - don't spend too much - pc's don't go up in value - they drop in value - sorta fast like us out de plane.

wow - I am stunned to see this conversation is still topping the charts... Steve ie baby... If you vote against gay marriage because you feel it is wrong based on your religious views alone - I would say this is you trying to enforce your religious view point on others. If you vote against it because you personally think it is not a good thing - that is ok with me. Religious objections to gay marriage seem to dominate the news coverage of the issue and in my opinion/view the religious community is the loudest objectors to this topic and just another example of that community trying to push their moral view of the world on others. Marriage between one man and one woman is a cultural norm - ie - it is based on tradition in a partictualr cultural arena. This idea has no foundation in anything except our history as a people and how we have come to accept public relations amoung adults. (I am leaving children out of this picture although it should be noted that children and adult sex is normal in some cultures - not that I agree with it - as my views have been formed by my environment and they give me a negative view for that activity - however - it is important to note - that other groups of humans have a view point that this is normal and healthy and they live with it for better or worse) Now.. back to our conversation on democracy. We (in the US) do not live with a pure 'representative democracy'; we live with a 'constitutional republic'. The difference is that while yes we elect our represenatives - they are bound by the our constitution (sp - man I hate spelling words). This constitution provides limitations on their power to enact laws of certian types; such as religous laws - ie. our famous 'freedom of religion' - or is that 'freedom from religion' - not sure.. See - if congress through the will of the people enact a law based on a specific religions desires - it will be knocked down as unconstutional - as it is unconstutional. Congress shall make no laws reguarding religion; or something simular. (I am no expert here so please correct me when I am wrong). So - if your groups of religous folks try to get a law passed outlawing gay marriage based on your objection from a religous basis - it will not stand. If you however find an argument that stands on its own without religious overtones - then that may stand a chance - but you have to have good solid reasons why this is not an good idea for our society. so - when I see religous folk pounding our elected folk to put their beleifs into law; well your no better than the taliban. so -keep this in mind - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof This is a gift to you to practice your religion on your own - not your pass to force others to do as you beleive. Thus the above can also be read as Freedom From Religion When you try to take from me my right to this ; well your just a talibany in my opinion.

again.. putting words in my mouth? I said they should not be allowed to forcefully subject me to their viewpoints.. but I see we should be done with this go round. It's gettin no where.

Umm. Typical. In effect your saying that as long as you can get a large enough group to vote a partictular way then, 'so be it; Anything goes.' with this rational, your basically saying that you have no viewpoints that you would deem inapproiate to force upon the population as a whole as long as a subtgroup within the population can get enough support to make it so. this is what your saying, you know this?

pretty simple. Force: I make you do something/not do something I think you should/should not and provide concenquences if you do not/do. exmaple - forceful policy - no gays should be allowed marriage. This has tangible negative consequences on those denied marriage benefits. Gay marriage as no 'tangible' negative concenquences. To say otherwise is biggotry.

you know, I was about to say... let me rephrase. "I beleive we should twart their attempts to try and peddle their views in a forceful way on others." but no, I do beleive they should not be allowed to try and peddle their views in a forceful way on others. I think that stands on it's own. I didn't say they did not have the right to peddle their views on others, I said, they should not be allowed to 'with force' that is quite a big difference.

I never said I want to shut up anyone. I said I want to counter what they say; challenge their ideas; and twart their growth as a group. your putting words in my mouth. I'd thank you not to.

my response here is a bit tougher to verbalize. However, I would argue that you are aware of topics that tend to align with religious vs. non-religous viewpoints. One of these would be gay-marriage and I would argue that you would agree that the religous vote carries much weight on this topic. yes?

this issue transcends religion as well.

No, many people across the board wish abortion was not so. However, that is not to say that many vote the conscious of the church with no thought of their own on this topic and others. Here the church influences unduly.. Abortion is not a good topic for religions discussions for the most part as it is so fundamental an issue. It devides religious and non religious alike. Try gay marriage or stem cell research, or evolution education as better topics that demonstrait the dementia in the churchs thinking. (and how each of these are currently hot political topics)

Yes, and herin lies the rub. We have been too tolerant of the religious and their propaganda for too long. Instead of being vocal, the majority live and let live. But the religious groups are becoming more vocal and active and thus the non religious need to become more vocal and active. this is my position.

this stand on its own, outside religion, as a undersirable behavior for society in general. you think only religious people want this to not exist?

Again.. this is why it is important to oppose the propagation of religion. When their numbers get too large they start getting power they shouldn't have; such as the ability to effect policy for those not in their religion. Take Kansas.. look at the turmoil there with the school boards and evolution. They want to just drop it from the public schools and replace it with creationism. I mean, am I missing something here? Hostilities are brewing and I see the trend to be increasing.

then please refrain from trying to bring others into a releigion you do not understand. If you don't understand the 'counter-point'; you cannot possibly understand the 'point'.

cherry pickin references? - na.. you have to generalize behavior of the group over time. this is where religion has its bad name...

yikes - I would call you and your reasoning.. well .. your a quack. reminds me of this girl I used to date so I know it well. When your in the room, say a cubic room, there is this magic 9th corner and shit flies out of it. the only problem is that your the only one who knows where it (that magic 9th corner) is.

I beleive in the freedom of religous groups to exist and beleive as they choose. I beleive they should not be allowed to try and peddle their views in a forceful way on others. Some simple examples... gay marriage abortion birth control display of ten commandments science education access to health services stem sell research sex/violence on tv and in movies vouchers for religious schools etc... They (the releigous) gang up on our politicians and try to force their views into policy. This is typical of a oppressive regime and if they were to ever acheive dominance then we would be in a world like the taliban etc.. this is why we (the non releigious) need to knock and discredit releigions at every oppertunity. again, i beleive they should be allowed to have their freedoms - but history proovs they cannot keep it to them selves.

god - love - both in imagination - or the little voice inside your head. math, btw, falls in the same categorie - does math exist in the 'real' world? no, it does not. It only lives in the little voices in our heads. interesting isn't it. most people won't get the math one... but it's true.