Could the US become a Theocracy ?

[segovius]

Yes. Next month.

This is a truly frightening article (http://context.themoscowtimes.com/index.php?aid=131199).

Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/23/33620/186) also covering.

Basically, the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" will:

"acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty [and] government" in the United States. What's more, it would forbid all legal challenges to government officials who use the power of the state to enforce their own view of "God's sovereign authority." Any judge who dared even hear such a challenge could be removed from office.

No comment is adequate. It's time to be afraid.

You need to read this. Really.

[hardeeharhar]

That is absolutely fucking terrifying...

The people who support that bill should lose their citizenship...

[powermacG6]

Anyone fancy a move to Europe?

[MarcUK]

WOW! Legal rights to stone me to death. Love it.

[MarcUK]

What I don't get, is IF they introduce God above the ruling of the supreme court, who gets to decide what God has actually judged?

Is someone going to overrule the Supreme Court, because they think God has just spoken to them?

[Scott]

The elections's over. You can stop the FUD.

[Outsider]

Yeee hawww!!! (http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1644862)

[hardeeharhar]

I like how they ignore atheist, agnostics, polytheism, satan worship etc etc as religious views...


Basically, if you aren't Christian, tough luck...

[addabox]

Originally posted by Scott
The elections's over. You can stop the FUD.

Poor Scott. Obliged to regard reality as FUD.

In the article linked to above, wherein judge Roy Moore 'splains hisself, he says this after being asked if his bill will infringe on the rights of other religions:

No. The freedom of conscience and right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience are the very objects guaranteed by the First Amendment. Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution regarding the First Amendment stated: “The rights of conscience are indeed beyond the reach of human power, they are given by God and cannot be encroached upon by any human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural as well as of revealed religion.”

In other words, although it is intolerable that federal courts would interfere with state entities that want to forward Christianity as a central element of governance, those citizens who feel excluded by same have nothing to bitch about because faith is between them and their God and no secular entity can interfere with that.

Which notion of course obviates the need for the bill in the first place....

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I like how they ignore atheist, agnostics, polytheism, satan worship etc etc as religious views...


Basically, if you aren't Christian, tough luck...


You know, it would be nice if you guys could actually read. The Act being supported would not lead to the US being a theocracy, nor would it even be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It's obvious that the intent is prevent the courts from [i[stopping[/i] the ackowledgement of God in our society. At present, the first Amendment is actually being violated because people are being prevented from ackowledging their faith.

The other part of the Act is more important, which would prevent the USC from acknowledging the law of foreign nations in support of its decisions. I definitely support that.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It's obvious that the intent is prevent the courts from stopping the ackowledgement of God in our society. At present, the first Amendment is actually being violated because people are being prevented from ackowledging their faith.

Who is prevented from acknowledging their faith?

And if we want to acknowledge god as was intended by our founding fathers, I think most christians here would be very upset.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You know, it would be nice if you guys could actually read. The Act being supported would not lead to the US being a theocracy, nor would it even be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It's obvious that the intent is prevent the courts from [i[stopping[/i] the ackowledgement of God in our society. At present, the first Amendment is actually being violated because people are being prevented from ackowledging their faith. Can you provide an example of where citizens have been prevented from acknowledging their faith? Or is it just that the government has been prevented from doing so?

[Outsider]

Originally posted by SDW2001
At present, the first Amendment is actually being violated because people are being prevented from ackowledging their faith. How?

[addabox]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You know, it would be nice if you guys could actually read. The Act being supported would not lead to the US being a theocracy, nor would it even be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It's obvious that the intent is prevent the courts from [i[stopping[/i] the ackowledgement of God in our society. At present, the first Amendment is actually being violated because people are being prevented from ackowledging their faith.

The other part of the Act is more important, which would prevent the USC from acknowledging the law of foreign nations in support of its decisions. I definitely support that.

Perhaps you could provide us with some examples of "people" (i.e. private individuals as opposed to government institutions and their agents) being prevented from acknowledging their faith.

When I read this kind of post I really wonder about the mind set of the wingers hereabouts. I mean the idea that "people" are being kept from acknowledging their faith by "activist courts" is so, well, you know, bone stupid on the face of it, why bother making the claim?

Is it your notion that someone like Roy Moore is being prevented from acknowledging his faith by being prevented from displaying the ten commandments in the state court house? He could display the ten commandments in neon lights on his front lawn without drawing the scrutiny of the federal courts, so what is being prevented?

Is it that you believe that government employees must be able to festoon their work places with religious iconography or their freedoms are being abridged? I doubt you would feel very good about walking into a courtroom with a big 'ole picture of Shiva on the wall, so I'd have to assume that if you do, in fact, believe that, you would limit said festooning to Christian iconography.

At which point you pretty much declare yourself in favor of a Theocracy, and I'm hoping that's not right, so what's the deal?

Or, um.... are you just being pointlessly combative without trying very hard to think through the implications of what is being proposed by this legislation?

That can't be right!

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SDW2001
You know, it would be nice if you guys could actually read. The Act being supported would not lead to the US being a theocracy, nor would it even be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It's obvious that the intent is prevent the courts from [i[stopping[/i] the ackowledgement of God in our society. At present, the first Amendment is actually being violated because people are being prevented from ackowledging their faith.

The other part of the Act is more important, which would prevent the USC from acknowledging the law of foreign nations in support of its decisions. I definitely support that.

You know it would be nice if you could read.

I am a member of religion A which explicitly states that there is no god. Since I am going to hell according to the Christian ethos, what prevents a judge acting on his faith from assuming my guilt in a minor fender-bender (because all sinners are guilty) and sentancing me to the "reasonable heathen" sentence of 50-life?

And on top of that, I can't even appeal such a descision.

Will wonder's never cease?

Or lets look at it another way, I am of religion B which states that all devout monotheistic persons are guilty of murder and every single person that comes into my court that *looks* like they are of a monotheistic religion, you know -- pale, I tack on the charge of murder and direct the jury to find them guilty...

Teeheehee...

[Scott]

Forgetting for the moment that this law stands snowball's chance in hell of passing and by my reading is unconstitutional the hysteria that this would usher in theocracy is stupid.

[Scott]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You know it would be nice if you could read.

I am a member of religion A which explicitly states that there is no god. Since I am going to hell according to the Christian ethos, what prevents a judge acting on his faith from assuming my guilt in a minor fender-bender (because all sinners are guilty) and sentancing me to the "reasonable heathen" sentence of 50-life?

...

Assuming the law passes please explain how that would be allowed. Site the wording in the actual law. I wait with baited breath for you reply.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
Assuming the law passes please explain how that would be allowed. Site the wording in the actual law. I wait with baited breath for you reply.

Four words: Sovereignty of God's Law.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Scott
Assuming the law passes please explain how that would be allowed. Site the wording in the actual law. I wait with baited breath for you reply.

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

So it kinda depends on what is meant by "acknowledging God as the sovereign source of law".

Now one thing that last few years have taught us is that evangelical Christians are very serious about the centrality of their faith to their (and our) lives. This isn't "live and let live" stuff, this is "God said so end of story despite what the damned might happen to believe".

So if I'm an evangelical Christian judge, say, why wouldn't I attempt to mete out God's justice to the very extend that I am allowed to do so? Aren't I, in fact, obliged to do exactly that? To further, to the best of my abilities and the extent of my capacities, the establishment of righteousness?

After all, the legislation specifically mandates the "sovereignty" of God, and if you think they mean a kind of abstract, nondenominational one-size-fits-all God then you are very alarmingly naive, if not brain-damaged.

So it may be that I, as a evangelical Christian judge, feel very strongly indeed that "acknowledging my faith" requires quite a bit more of me than just the odd thumbs up for Jesus or cruciform tie-tack. It may require me (well, let's just call a spade a spade, shall we-- it almost certainly does require me) to move substantially beyond lip service to (uh- oh, here's that word) activism.

So after I assert that "acknowledging my faith" obliges me to assert God's will in the courtroom, how do we sort that out?

Can't, under the terms of the bill. Higher federal courts are banned from considering such a scenario.

Now, as far as the likelihood of something like this getting passed, I'm a little surprised that you, Scott, of all people, would dismiss this as straw man.

Isn't the entire story of this election how us hapless liberals have once again underestimated the power of faith and values in heartland America? Isn't a testament to the wisdom of the American people that we just elected an additional five right wing fundamentalist Senators? Aren't obstructionist Democrats behooved to simply lie down and let the will of the people roll over them like God's mighty thunder?

I seem to recall that Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage was just political grandstanding, playing to the cheap seats.

If you can take a moment to stop celebrating 4 more years of the same, you might want to actually stop and consider what kind of country you're helping to usher in.

[trick fall]

There is a war going on right now, right here in America. It is a war between secularists and Evangelical Christians and I fear only the Evangelicals know this war is being fought. Its time for secularists to wake up and acknowledge the fact that we are at war and start fighting back. Evangelical Christians are a danger to our society and a threat to our very way of life. This country faces no greater danger than the Christian Right.

[SDW2001]

Examples? Fine. They're everywhere.

1. No voluntary prayer in public schools.

2. Prayer at school events like football games and graduations is being restricted and eliminated.

3. Municiplaities are being prevented from setting up things like nativity scenes, for exmple.

4. We have a debate about whether or not "under God" should be in the pledge.

5. The Ten Commandments, which DO comprise at least some of the basis of our laws, were removed forcibly over Justice Moore's objection.

Whether you'd like to admit it or not, the founding fathers of this nation were extremely religious. It is true that many were not Christians, but the nation itself was founded on an escape from religious persecution. What we have today is completely alien to the intent of the founders. You know it, you just don't like it.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by trick fall
There is a war going on right now, right here in America. It is a war between secularists and Evangelical Christians and I fear only the Evangelicals know this war is being fought. Its time for secularists to wake up and acknowledge the fact that we are at war and start fighting back. Evangelical Christians are a danger to our society and a threat to our very way of life. This country faces no greater danger than the Christian Right.

You are truly out of your fucking mind.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Scott
The elections's over. You can stop the FUD.
Do you have that phrase bound to a button on your mouse now? If you think we were bringing this stuff up pre-election solely to lampoon the Republican party, you are mistaken. This is even more applicable now that Bush has been reelected. I see no reason to 'shut up' just because you and your party have landed a temporary victory.

[trick fall]

No, the people who watch and embrace the 700 Club are out of their mind.

[Rick1138]

Actually you are.(Meaning SDW)

Municiplaities are being prevented from setting up things like nativity scenes, for exmple.

They are prohibited by the constitution. It is not the business of government to promote religion.

Whether you'd like to admit it or not, the founding fathers of this nation were extremely religious.

Ever hear of Tom Paine? Ben Franklin? Fine churchgoing men I presume...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Examples? Fine. They're everywhere.

1. No voluntary prayer in public schools.

2. Prayer at school events like football games and graduations is being restricted and eliminated.

3. Municiplaities are being prevented from setting up things like nativity scenes, for exmple.

4. We have a debate about whether or not "under God" should be in the pledge.

5. The Ten Commandments, which DO comprise at least some of the basis of our laws, were removed forcibly over Justice Moore's objection.

Whether you'd like to admit it or not, the founding fathers of this nation were extremely religious. It is true that many were not Christians, but the nation itself was founded on an escape from religious persecution. What we have today is completely alien to the intent of the founders. You know it, you just don't like it. Every one of your examples involves the government, not private individuals. What distinguished our founders from their historical context is how non-religious they were, not how religious. It was the enlightenment. Reason and humanism were their contributions, not religion.

[bunge]

Originally posted by BRussell
Every one of your examples involves the government, not private individuals.

That's because he's out of his fucking mind.

[Rick1138]

Exactly.

[groverat]

Thanks to the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus' promise that all those persecuted for his sake will be granted the kingdom of heaven we have to endure the most priveleged large class in the history of mankind (white Christian America) constantly whining about persecution.

The oppressed white man syndrome, it would be laughable if it weren't so frightening.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by trick fall
Evangelical Christians are a danger to our society and a threat to our very way of life.

Funny how time flies.

It used to be said about native indians who had to be herded into reservations, then blacks who wouldn't accept their role as slaves, then Jews who had somehow gained worldwide control of the banking system.

So we're in good company. And I'm proud to be a threat to the lifestyle of the truly ignorant.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Frank777
Funny how time flies.

It used to be said about native indians who had to be herded into reservations, then blacks who wouldn't accept their role as slaves, then Jews who had somehow gained worldwide control of the banking system.

So we're in good company. And I'm proud to be a threat to the lifestyle of the truly ignorant.

Except that none of the other groups you mentioned ever actively tried to oppress the lifestyle choices of anyone else. In fact it was always the oppressors who were the "truly ignorant". And at this time, there cannot be any argument that the fundies are the oppressors. They tell us who can and can't get married, what symbols we must tolerate in our government and public education, what we can do with our own bodies. LEAVE US ALONE.

JUST LEAVE US ALONE.

I've said this before:

If you don't like homosexuality, don't have sex with a man.
If you don't support gay marriage, don't marry a man.
If you are against abortion, don't get one.
If you want to pray in school, do it silently or alone.

But don't you dare tell me and mine what we can and cannot do when it doesn't involve you.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Frank777
Funny how time flies.

It used to be said about native indians who had to be herded into reservations, then blacks who wouldn't accept their role as slaves, then Jews who had somehow gained worldwide control of the banking system.

So we're in good company. And I'm proud to be a threat to the lifestyle of the truly ignorant.

One of the more genuinely grotesque posts I've come across here at AI.

[Harald]

Q. What does the right to acknowledge God have to do with foreign law?

A. The acknowledgment of God and absolute standards distinguishes us from other nations and political systems. The source of American law cannot be replaced by laws of foreign jurisdictions which base their authority on secular principles.

Can you spot the mistake in this "exceptionalist" FAQ taken from here? (http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1644862).

That's right, there are many other countries that acknowledge God and his 'absolute standards' as the basis for their legal systems.

Such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Harald
Can you spot the mistake in this "exceptionalist" FAQ taken from here? (http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1644862).

That's right, there are many other countries that acknowledge God and his 'absolute standards' as the basis for their legal systems.

Such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

But that God is not American.....

[Harald]

Originally posted by Frank777
Funny how time flies.

It used to be said about native indians who had to be herded into reservations, then blacks who wouldn't accept their role as slaves

So we're in good company. And I'm proud to be a threat to the lifestyle of the truly ignorant.

... and this was done by devoutly religious Christians, often using the same Christian God as justification.

Funny how time flies indeed.

And what threat are you to the ignorant by the way? I thought you just wanted to *protect* your lifestyle, which was under attack from left, right and centre by godless arse-bandits?

What threat are you to the lifestyle of the truly ignorant?

Tell us.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Frank777
Funny how time flies.

It used to be said about native indians who had to be herded into reservations, then blacks who wouldn't accept their role as slaves, then Jews who had somehow gained worldwide control of the banking system.

So we're in good company. And I'm proud to be a threat to the lifestyle of the truly ignorant.
Because the Native Americans had their hands on the levers of power and were a real threat to the settlers, right?

Because African slaves were really in a position to force Europeans to worship Yoruba gods and accept Yoruba religious law, right?

As for the Jews in Lithuania and Poland, they chose to go to the death camps even though they ACTUALLY WERE RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT, yes?

You people have the Senate, the Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency and you're comparing yourself to the NATIVE AMERICANS, AFRICAN SLAVES AND EUROPEAN JEWS?

Hells bells, I am scared. You people are capable of anything.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Scott
The elections's over. You can stop the FUD.

"We won. NOW SHUT UP."

[Hassan i Sabbah]

On the real, though, what are the chances of this thing actually being passed?

Will this actually become law?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
On the real, though, what are the chances of this thing actually being passed?

Will this actually become law?

How about we just ask this: what percentage of the republicans in power want this as law?

[Common Man]

The more I listen to you guys, the more I think that the Democrats will never again control any branch of government. You are so out of touch.

[Harald]

I'm not a fucking Democrat.

I'm a European that went to school and learned history. And I'm telling you that America is Germany in 1932.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Harald
And I'm telling you that America is Germany in 1932. Oh stop.

[Frank777]

Wow, Tonton, Addabox, Harald and Hassan....must've said something right! :D

My point was really with Trick Fall's need of a societal scapegoat.

There are thousands of homeless, jobs being lost to outsourcing, corruption at all levels of government. Not to mention a brutal war in Iraq and Terror concerns.

But somehow Evangelical Christians are the "biggest threat" to his way of life.

Blaming a minority group because things aren't going your way is not new.

[Harald]

Your minority runs the country.

Your minority wants to introduce biblical law.

Your minority hates homosexuals and has this pathetic delusional whiny patter about being 'oppressed' when it has all the power and wants to reduce rights for others.

You compared your 'minority' to slaves and Jews. Fairly nauseating.

Oh, and answer the question: you said you didn't mind being a threat to the ignorant.

What threat are you? What would you like to see happen to the ignorant?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Frank777
My point was really with Trick Fall's need of a societal scapegoat.

There are thousands of homeless, jobs being lost to outsourcing, corruption at all levels of government. Not to mention a brutal war in Iraq and Terror concerns.

But somehow Evangelical Christians are the "biggest threat" to his way of life.

Blaming a minority group because things aren't going your way is not new.
OK. I take your point and it's a good one.

Nonetheless, Christians are the majority in your country and they're not under threat. I believe, and many others evidently agree, that this legislation isn't going to do your democracy any good. It isn't a good idea to go down this road.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Common Man
You are so out of touch. Out of touch with what? The 'common man'? 51% of the electorate? The notion that same-sex marriages are somehow a greater threat than airplanes being flown into buildings or people not being able to feed and house their families?

A majority of Bush voters were more concerned with 'moral issues' than with the economy, national security or the Bush administration's abysmal record on both. It strikes me that these people are the ones who are out of touch. See if you can guess what it is they're out of touch with.

[dmz]

America would definitly become a theocracy except that the shadow government won't stand for that kind of competition.;)

*snip -- forgot take my antiasshole pills this moring*

[trick fall]

There are thousands of homeless, jobs being lost to outsourcing, corruption at all levels of government. Not to mention a brutal war in Iraq and Terror concerns.


And these are all issues that the Christian Right allow politicians to avoid so long as they are anti abortion and make sure gays can't get married.

[trick fall]

But somehow Evangelical Christians are the "biggest threat" to his way of life. Blaming a minority group because things aren't going your way is not new.


Evangelical Christians themselves are not the threat, their deluded twisted version of faith is. I would hardly call the Christian Right a minority both in numbers and definition. If I had a rant blaming the KKK or Left Wing extremists for the ills of our society would I be blaming a minority? Or would I be trying to point out the dangers of an assinine belief system?

[segovius]

Originally posted by trick fall
Evangelical Christians themselves are not the threat, their deluded twisted version of faith is. I would hardly call the Christian Right a minority both in numbers and definition. If I had a rant blaming the KKK or Left Wing extremists for the ills of our society would I be blaming a minority? Or would I be trying to point out the dangers of an assinine belief system?

Jesus and the FDA (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html)

Seems pretty threatening to me.

[dmz]

We just can't have self-consious Christians in Government. Be afraid, be very afraid.

"We ought to be persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained."
- George Washington

[Common Man]

I'm a European that went to school and learned history. And I'm telling you that America is Germany in 1932.

The last resort for desperate leftists is to go to the Hitler card. The US is not dominated by a band of torch-carrying right wing radical Christians as you want to think. We don't hate gay people. Our opposition is to the homosexual agenda regarding gay marriage. We believe that marriage is between one woman and one man. Many people would accept provisions for gay people to have equal access to the security benefits that marriage provides. Yes there are gay haters, as there are Christian haters, but hate is not the driving force in most Americans hearts regarding this issue.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by dmz
*snip -- forgot take my antiasshole pills this moring* Did someone say "asshole?'

http://filmstripinternational.com/

[kneelbeforezod]

I just read this fascinating Blog entry (http://www.livejournal.com/users/wayfairer/456769.html) from a self-styled 'ex-Southern conservative' about why many Southern conservatives / conservative Christians view Bush with such a rosy-tint. While I don't think I learned anything new from the post, it provided me with a slightly different perspective that made the focus of many conservative Christian voters on perceived 'moral values' - as opposed to the economy and (inter)national security - a little easier to understand. This shift still bothers me, but it doesn't seem as inexplicable as it did before.

Bush did not win the election based on ignorance and stupidity. He won the election based on a belief system that has been determinedly advancing across the country because Christians believe it is their spiritual duty to bring people to Christ. And you cannot be successfully brought to Christ until you also commit to serving Christ. You cannot successfully serve Christ unless you do his will. And it is Christ's will that Bush win re-election.

...

If I were still a conservative Christian I can tell you exactly how this election would look to me right now. Kerry is an immoral man of the World, and I thank God that Bush, a man of clear moral integrity who is out to defeat Satan regardless of the forces that stand in his way, has been blessed with victory. He didn't win the election--God chose him as the leader of this nation.

That is how I would view this election. And that is not a stance that would make me ignorant, stupid, bigoted, or homophobic. Because I read just as many newspapers then as now. I was valedictorian of my high school. I was open-minded and tolerant. And I was always pro-gay rights from the time I made my first gay friend at age 9.

I was trying to be the best Christian I could be. And I cast everything in a structured world, where everything was a question of what I was doing in my walk with Christ, and whether I was being persecuted.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Common Man
The last resort for desperate leftists is to go to the Hitler card. The US is not dominated by a band of torch-carrying right wing radical Christians as you want to think. We don't hate gay people. Our opposition is to the homosexual agenda regarding gay marriage. We believe that marriage is between one woman and one man. Many people would accept provisions for gay people to have equal access to the security benefits that marriage provides. Yes there are gay haters, as there are Christian haters, but hate is not the driving force in most Americans hearts regarding this issue.

No, Conman Man, I'm not saying you're Nazis.

I'm saying that the ground is ripe for good people to go bad.

The Germans were good people inside who believed a filthy myth and were manipulated by propagandists and fantasists.

You have increasing intolerance, a phantom threat from gays and liberals that are threatening your way of life, a state that is increasingly militaristic and nationalist, a leader that purposefully puts faith before facts ... and an impending fiscal crisis that will leave hungry, right-wing people that don't understand the world with the largest army in the world.

The homosexual 'agenda' DOES NOT AFFECT YOU ONE BIT. We are talking of extending rights that do not change one single thing about your marriage. You just don't understand the 'agenda.'

The US is run by a torch-carrying right wing radical Christian, Moe. It's run by one.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Common Man
We believe that marriage is between one woman and one man.

So don't marry a man.

It's that simple.

[Rick1138]

I believe that the ideal marriage is between one man and two women.

[Ra]

Originally posted by Common Man
The more I listen to you guys, the more I think that the Democrats will never again control any branch of government. You are so out of touch. Care to clue us in then, oh Enlightened One?

[tonton]

Originally posted by Common Man
We believe that marriage is between one woman and one man.

So don't marry a man.

It's that simple.

[FormerLurker]

Apparently "ignorance is bliss" got mixed up somehow with "ignorance is blessed"

[ipodandimac]

Originally posted by Ra
Care to clue us in then, oh Enlightened One?
i'm coming into the middle of this discussion, bt i thought i would add my 2 cents. to speak frankly, if you were in touch with or knew what it took to be in touch with "the people," kerry would be president. i'm not saying that Republicans or I or anyone else has the answer, but to say that Democrats already know what the people want is ignorant.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Common Man
We believe that marriage is between one woman and one man.

So don't marry a man.

It's that simple.