And here we have the noble and undoubtedly holy moral warriors for Jesus in the Colorado legislature taking up the mantle of their Lord against the insidious evil of Civil Unions between same-sex couples.
It's just.... Sanctimonious grandstanding. It's hilarious and incredibly sad at the same time.
Fortunately, the measure passed despite all this righteous indignation.
(04-27-2012 07:44 AM)wvucrazed Wrote: [ -> ]And here we have the noble and undoubtedly holy moral warriors for Jesus in the Colorado legislature taking up the mantle of their Lord against the insidious evil of Civil Unions between same-sex couples.
It's just.... Sanctimonious grandstanding. It's hilarious and incredibly sad at the same time.
Fortunately, the measure passed despite all this righteous indignation.
I'm driving to Colorado and voting for this guy as many times as I can and I'll get away with it because voter fraud isn't real and I support militant theocracy...moron.
(04-27-2012 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry, but there should be a rule against quoting scripture as evidence in a senate debate.
why?
Even if you disagree with the scripture... why should one be able to quote Gandhi but not Jesus? Why be able to quote the federalist papers but not the Bible...
(04-27-2012 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry, but there should be a rule against quoting scripture as evidence in a senate debate.
why?
Even if you disagree with the scripture... why should one be able to quote Gandhi but not Jesus? Why be able to quote the federalist papers but not the Bible...
This. Even if you don't agree with the bible, it is a philosophical book, in some cases very historically accurate.
(04-27-2012 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry, but there should be a rule against quoting scripture as evidence in a senate debate.
why?
Even if you disagree with the scripture... why should one be able to quote Gandhi but not Jesus? Why be able to quote the federalist papers but not the Bible...
This. Even if you don't agree with the bible, it is a philosophical book, in some cases very historically accurate.
(04-27-2012 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry, but there should be a rule against quoting scripture as evidence in a senate debate.
why?
Even if you disagree with the scripture... why should one be able to quote Gandhi but not Jesus? Why be able to quote the federalist papers but not the Bible...
Because religious beliefs should not be espoused as evidence in government affairs? Those other things you are listing aren't religious documents, nor do they require belief in a specific holy doctrine to gain meaning from; they are simply opinions and viewpoints of normal people and are given weight as such.
(04-27-2012 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry, but there should be a rule against quoting scripture as evidence in a senate debate.
why?
Even if you disagree with the scripture... why should one be able to quote Gandhi but not Jesus? Why be able to quote the federalist papers but not the Bible...
This. Even if you don't agree with the bible, it is a philosophical book, in some cases very historically accurate.
Not to be a dick, but so is Red Badge of Courage.
And I for one don't give a fat rat's @55 if someone wants to get up on the house floor and quote Steven Crane or Upton Sinclair when trying to push their POV...
(04-27-2012 10:35 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]Because religious beliefs should not be espoused as evidence in government affairs?
Take it up with the founders who kicked off congress with a prayer...
Quote:Those other things you are listing aren't religious documents, nor do they require belief in a specific holy doctrine to gain meaning from; they are simply opinions and viewpoints of normal people and are given weight as such.
I know you dream of a world where Christians have to STFU so that humanist and secularist can spout their mental mush but that is in *no way* a characteristic of what the founders envisioned when they set up our government.
(04-27-2012 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry, but there should be a rule against quoting scripture as evidence in a senate debate.
why?
Even if you disagree with the scripture... why should one be able to quote Gandhi but not Jesus? Why be able to quote the federalist papers but not the Bible...
This. Even if you don't agree with the bible, it is a philosophical book, in some cases very historically accurate.
Not to be a dick, but so is Red Badge of Courage.
And I for one don't give a fat rat's @55 if someone wants to get up on the house floor and quote Steven Crane or Upton Sinclair when trying to push their POV...
Quote:Take it up with the founders who kicked off congress with a prayer...
So what does that have to do with anything? There's plenty of their original views we changed or evolved from, why is this any different?
Quote:I know you dream of a world where Christians have to STFU so that humanist and secularist can spout their mental mush but that is in *no way* a characteristic of what the founders envisioned when they set up our government.
No, I dream of a world where government decisions are made due to rational and evidence based arguments. Scripture is not admissible in court as evidence of someones guilt, it should not be allowed in congress as evidence regarding legislation.
Your religion is not your politics, and those who profess otherwise are only using your faith to control your politics.
(04-27-2012 11:00 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]Your religion is not your politics, and those who profess otherwise are only using your faith to control your politics.
Huh... son you don't know me well enough to know what I think of politicians who wear their religion as their issue..
(04-27-2012 11:00 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]Your religion is not your politics, and those who profess otherwise are only using your faith to control your politics.
Huh... son you don't know me well enough to know what I think of politicians who wear their religion as their issue..
Ok son, glad we got that sorted out and I'm glad you've made it apparent you are in fact older than I am, and therefore have a more valid opinion than me since you've obviously had the foresight and intelligence to avoid the many dangers in this day and age.
I was being facetious about the making it illegal, I just abhor it when it's used as evidence. It automatically makes me assume the person using it has no valid reasons and instead is going to rely on religion to gain the support they need.
(04-27-2012 11:00 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]Your religion is not your politics, and those who profess otherwise are only using your faith to control your politics.
Huh... son you don't know me well enough to know what I think of politicians who wear their religion as their issue..
Ok son, glad we got that sorted out and I'm glad you've made it apparent you are in fact older than I am, and therefore have a more valid opinion than me since you've obviously had the foresight and intelligence to avoid the many dangers in this day and age.
wow.. I guess I hit one of these
Age and wisdom do not always come together... Just saying that you don't know me well enough to state *I* am being led around by politicians who wear their religion, I find it generally distasteful.
Quote:I was being facetious about the making it illegal, I just abhor it when it's used as evidence. It automatically makes me assume the person using it has no valid reasons and instead is going to rely on religion to gain the support they need.
Your bigotry is between you and whatever god you worship..
What part in that diagram specifically? Dendrite? Axon? Nerve Cell Body? Maybe you're referencing it's myelin sheath? I know it's a multipolar nerve cell, so it could be used in the CNS or the PNS so that's doesn't help. Maybe you're concerning yourself the axon hillock? Is that pre or post-synaptic? Maybe you're referencing ACh? Or another neurotransmitter? Gotta be more specific here.
Quote:Age and wisdom do not always come together... Just saying that you don't know me well enough to state *I* am being led around by politicians who wear their religion, I find it generally distasteful.
Wasn't claiming you specifically were, I meant it as 'Ones religion is not ones politics' but I can see why the wording along with the forum we're on, made you take it that way.
Quote:Your bigotry is between you and whatever god you worship..
That's not bigotry, I just expect rational reasoning at that level of government. I wouldn't expect you to accept someone stating their god believes in giving all money to the government and getting a ID chip implanted into ones skin, even if they quoted their scripture. It's irrelevant to the discussion and a sign of someone who has no valid and rational reason.
(04-27-2012 11:08 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]Ok son, glad we got that sorted out and I'm glad you've made it apparent you are in fact older than I am, and therefore have a more valid opinion than me since you've obviously had the foresight and intelligence to avoid the many dangers in this day and age.
I was being facetious about the making it illegal, I just abhor it when it's used as evidence. It automatically makes me assume the person using it has no valid reasons and instead is going to rely on religion to gain the support they need.
Well said. When there are no valid reasons for an argument, religion is the first thing they grasp at.
(04-27-2012 11:22 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ]What part in that diagram specifically? Dendrite? Axon? Nerve Cell Body? Maybe you're referencing it's myelin sheath? I know it's a multipolar nerve cell, so it could be used in the CNS or the PNS so that's doesn't help. Maybe you're concerning yourself the axon hillock? Is that pre or post-synaptic? Maybe you're referencing ACh? Or another neurotransmitter? Gotta be more specific here.
Holy cow he's made it through 11th grade biology! Sweet!
btw, in case you're seriously that obtuse... I stuck a "nerve"...
Quote:That's not bigotry, I just expect rational reasoning at that level of government.
Sure it is, unless you also think other philosophical schools not rooted in religion should also stay the hell out of debates...
And even then I have to ask can you logically argue against Social Darwinism and Eugenics? No the objections to those are rooted in moral and philosophical beliefs..
Quote:I wouldn't expect you to accept someone stating their god believes in giving all money to the government and getting a ID chip implanted into ones skin, even if they quoted their scripture.
I would not agree with them... But I would accept that they have every right to say that in a debate..
Quote:Holy cow he's made it through 11th grade biology! Sweet!
You don't take Biology in 11th grade, you take it freshman year, and you certainly don't learn about nerve cells in that course. That tends to focus more on the generic cells, their make up, cellular respiration, and the differences in how they replicate (had a really good teacher, and a fairly good memory).
Quote:Sure it is, unless you also think other philosophical schools not rooted in religion should also stay the hell out of debates...
Religion is not philosophy, nowhere close to it. Not sure how you're being intellectually honest here comparing the two, but it's a false premise and one that you need to stop falling back onto.
Quote:I would not agree with them... But I would accept that they have every right to say that in a debate..
Again, the original comment was tongue in cheek. It was facetious. I wasn't serious. Not meant to be taken literally. Got it?
Sanctimonious grandstanding. It's hilarious and incredibly sad at the same time. 
![[Image: 400px-Neuron_Hand-tuned.svg.png]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Neuron_Hand-tuned.svg/400px-Neuron_Hand-tuned.svg.png)