Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: delta_7890 on July 25, 2005, 05:57:07 pm
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129023,00.html
Thoughts? <<; Unfortunately their official website is down, so I can't really comment on it, but I saw a spot for this on World News Tonight on ABC and..I dunno.. I almost want this to happen..I mean, with some of the conflicts that have come up in recent years, but I'm veeeeery skepitical of this actually being pulled off.
-
They're saying this with the current administration? :wtf:
One wonders how they got through the Clinton years.
-
Hehe....
Might turn out nice in the end..you can never know..
-
stupidity.
-
Personally, I think everyone should get to have their own state. Christians in South Carolina, Jews get New York, voodoo magicians and prostitutes get Lousiana, Mexicans get New Mexico, rednecks get Texas, celeberties and plastic surgeons get California, old geezers get Florida...you see where I'm going with this.
On the upside, we'll stick the telemarketers and midgets in Hawaii, where they can be left to their own devices.
-
you know... good for them, let them go.
-
Hey, you should let them do, a 100% christian state, that wood be a perfect scapegoat for Al Quaeda, and the States would be left alone :p
-
Honestly, I say let them do it, let them get their own state. Hell, give them more land so that they can have more people while they're at it :)
-
[q]Christian Exodus (search), a California-based group, wants God to be its commander in chief. Decrying what it perceives as the unjust secularization of the United States, it wants a sovereign state of its own.[/q]
- He's a moron if he thinks that this gov't is secular.
- This does nothing to disprove what people say about California being full of nutters. (Sorry if you're in Ca)
- Why South Carolina? :wtf: He's probably never even been there.
- Let them have their owns state, but let it be a chunk of Iraq. They'll fit in well there. And it'll be one less place we have to worry about.
edit:
[q]The group comprises "mainstream evangelical Christians" who oppose abortion under all circumstances, want prayer in schools and hope to live far from "sodomites."[/q]
:lol: Afraid of the Sodomites, is he? :lol:
-
They should let em' do it. They could officially be the shortest lived country ever. :D
-
Hmmm... Isn't South Carolina a Christian Exodus already? What purpose would doing this serve?
Anyway, When can I submit an application for a country that bans religion outright? I'm thinking Washington State.
-
what purpose? well next time someone goes "this nation was founded on Christiaanity" you can go ".. no, but that one over there was."
-
:sigh:
They go on about the Muslim and Israeli extremist groups, but what about the Christian extremist groups...
Religeon is just screwing the world over again and again... :(
-
Not religon. Idiots with religious overtones.
-
I'm surprised they don't go after Texas. That state is not only full of hicks and other christian wackos, but it also has oil in it.
And it is close to the Mexican border, so they can make a break for it if there is a war with the union and they lose.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if they actually pull this off.
-
OK, first of all, never believe anything you hear from FOXNews.
Second, North Carolina a hub of liberalism?
-
Originally posted by Kosh
I'm surprised they don't go after Texas. That state is not only full of hicks and other christian wackos, but it also has oil in it.
Excuuuuse me.
Hehe, at least I dont live in oregon....its almost as bad as california.
-
Kosh, get your facts straight before you post.
Texas has been dry for a LONG time.
-
Originally posted by Raa
[q]The group comprises "mainstream evangelical Christians" who oppose abortion under all circumstances, want prayer in schools and hope to live far from "sodomites."[/q]
:lol: Afraid of the Sodomites, is he? :lol:
LOOK OUT! HERE COME THE SODOMITES!!
(http://juni0r.orcon.net.nz/orcs.jpg)
(http://www.filmjunkies.net/reviews/reviewlmn/lotrfellowshipbirch/orcs.jpg)
(http://dox.media2.org/barista/archives/mm043131.jpg)
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
Hehe, at least I dont live in oregon....its almost as bad as california.
What's so bad about California?
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
Excuuuuse me.
Hehe, at least I dont live in oregon....its almost as bad as california.
:D Oregon has its quirks, but I would perfer it to Texas any day of the week. At least we have a somewhat functional education system. :p
-
This does nothing to disprove what people say about California being full of nutters. (Sorry if you're in Ca)
HEY! I live in CA and you have no right to.......
..........wait..........
Never mind. Carry on. :nervous:
-
He's from Texas, I dont think you'd understand. But let me offer some Texan-to-English likely translations for you.
"Texas is better than California, solely because Southern California is in California. And as we all know, Southern California has alot of Mexicans."
Or
"California is mostly democrat."
Or
"I live in America, dammit! Whooo!!! Hail Bush, the genius from Texas!"
[/obligatory bash on Texas]
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
Hehe, at least I dont live in oregon....its almost as bad as california.
Indeed. It's got the political nuts, but at least you get an awesome climate for enduring them.
-
"California is mostly democrat."
Time for a good old Grammer Inquisition :hammer:
Actually, that would be mostly democratic
It's got the political nuts,
It at least gives Texas a run for its money.
-
I said it that way on purpose.
But thanks for spoiling the joke :).
-
Washington state vows to "nuke" the mother****er successionists. Once I'm govenor.
We have nuclear weapons you know... but against the successionists we shall deploy our ultimate weapon: the computer virus known as Windows Vista.
-
I say we give them Israel. That worked out so well last time :D
-
Originally posted by Kosh
It at least gives Texas a run for its money.
No one and nothing is more ****ed up then California politics. NO ONE AND NOTHING.
-
Except for Texas :p
-
You guys are missing the point-- Would anyone really miss South Carolina?
I didn't think so.
Furthermore, why is delta looking at Foxnews? :wtf:
-
Christian Exodus (search), a California-based group, wants God to be its commander in chief.
I say let them have it, invade and when they get their asses well and truly handed to them claim it was because "God didn't protect them"
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
You guys are missing the point-- Would anyone really miss South Carolina?
I didn't think so.
Furthermore, why is delta looking at Foxnews? :wtf:
Everyone needs a laugh once in a while.
-
what so wrong with having a 100% christianic country? Or islamic? or jewish one for that matter?
Religion isa integral part of an individual and separation of religion and state kinda doesn't make sense, since if you are a beliver, you are a beliver 100% of the time.. not only at home
You don't hang your beliefs on a hook when you go about working (if you're a giverment officail).
Some people are outright afraid of states based on religion, with no real reason to back that fear. ( bad past experience deosn't really count)
-
If you run a country on purely religious grounds, it's disrespectful and discriminatory against any non-believer who has to live in, enter, or deal with that country. The individuals right to expression, democracy, etc can be easily negated by citing some appropriate interpretation of the holy book of choice - wars can be justified on the basis of perceived sins, ethnic cleansing on the basis of being against infidels. Religion can be subverted to create a personality cult for the leader.
Just imagine how much you'd like to live in, say, Iran. And then also consider why devout (Iranian) Muslims are more than willing leave that Islamic theocracy and claim asylum.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
what so wrong with having a 100% christianic country? Or islamic? or jewish one for that matter?
Bluntly, the religion itself. It works for people willing to totally abide by the religion. But if someone doesn't abide by the religion, there's no method of changing it because by doing so you'd be perverting the religion itself from its original vision. So that person, or those people, more likely, must suffer persecution for their entire lives, or sacrifice their individuality for a semi-peaceful existence.
Having a non-religious government serves as a buffer zone of a sort; you can enact laws that most everyone agrees on, and as long as people have enough freedom, they can impose whatever restrictions on themselves that they like, while still allowing for individuals or groups of individuals who disagree with the main group to live their lives without total persecution. They might suffer some pointed glances every day, as they go to the supermarket with their seven wives and four husbands ;), but they probably won't have to live in constant fear of stonings.
Plus, laws can be changed and people can disagree with them while still sticking with their religion.
-
"We want to use the existing apparatus [of the United States] to put us in a position to protect our liberties, but we don't want to wall ourselves off from the rest of the world," Burnell told FOX News.
So they want their own country, completely different to the US, but expect the US to stick up for them?
Trash: Look at Iran. Look at Taliban-era Afghanistan. Look at 16th-century Europe. That's the kind of mess it makes...
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
You guys are missing the point-- Would anyone really miss South Carolina?
No way in Hell I'd want to drive through it on a trip to Florida, and damned be I if I have to circumnavigate the stupid podunk state.
-
That's why I fly to Florida Raa.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Religion isa integral part of an individual and separation of religion and state kinda doesn't make sense, since if you are a beliver, you are a beliver 100% of the time.. not only at home
You don't hang your beliefs on a hook when you go about working (if you're a giverment officail).
What the hell are you on? State/religion separation is about not having political religions based on religious belief, it has nothing to do with people's faith. There's very christian people in the french gvt, but religion has no say in political decisions here, and it's all the better, in a country where christianism is hardly the only religion about.
State/Religion separation is one of the things I'm proud of concerning my country's history.
-
*glad that others are correcting Trashman because he doesn't really want to*
Anyway, any progress on this? I'm actually hoping it works. The US is basically the North anyway, the South just exists to give us presidents that screw up our economy.
No, honestly, does anyone else feel like this? When I think of the United States, I think of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore, and Washington DC. I don't think of Houstan, Indianapolis, or Colombus. In fact, the only Southern state that I really actually think of is Florida, and that's because A) it has so many theme parks, and B) because it's so crazy there.
-
Ah, you're referring to the Blue States/Red States Paradox. One of the great things about America is our diversity. Sure it can be annoying at times when others order a cheese pizza instead of a plain or eat a hero, hoagie, or a submarine sandwich instead of a sub; or when the New Englander goes to a bah, while I go to a bar; but the New Yorker drinks cawfee, and the Southerner drinks coffee; but the Chicagoan drives a care while drinking a bottle of pop, while the San Franciscan drinks soda in a car and thinks their ride is "hella cool," while the Bostonian drinks tonic in a cah and says it's "wicked awesome," and the New Jerseyite goes down the shore, while everyone else goes to the beach, but you wouldn't change it for the world cause you know it'd be pretty boring without those kind of little nuances.
Umm, I just realized this doesn't have much to do with the discussion.
My point is, we may have our differences and disagree with one another's povs, but we still get along...at least until we had Bush. Now, we're practically divided like the Civil War again, because well, he doesn't even try to appease liberals. He's just pissing off all of them and the healing won't begin until he's out.
Btw, tobacco (which is the South's cash crop) is one of our biggest exports, and most of our cotton is grown there, and if you're on the east coast, your peaches come from Georgia.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
That's why I fly to Florida Raa.
But man was not meant to fly! The bible says so! The Christian Republic of South Carolina has pledged to shoot down any of these devil machines that enter our airspace!
Just give us a year or two to invent a really big catapault to shoot them down with!
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If you run a country on purely religious grounds, it's disrespectful and discriminatory against any non-believer who has to live in, enter, or deal with that country. The individuals right to expression, democracy, etc can be easily negated by citing some appropriate interpretation of the holy book of choice - wars can be justified on the basis of perceived sins, ethnic cleansing on the basis of being against infidels. Religion can be subverted to create a personality cult for the leader.
any coutry will be crap if it's run by crazy people..
I'm talking normal people... Lok at Vatican for example.
Runing a country on religous grounds and being a total fanatical ass are two completely different things.
Religion can be subvereted gor strange goels, if you have enough crazy people in the population, but so can the democratic principles or any other for that matter.. for instance, the US brining "peace" and "democracy" to the rest of the world... Yeah right.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Furthermore, why is delta looking at Foxnews? :wtf:
I'd originally seen the information for it on ABC World New Tonight, on TV. <<; Sadly I did not find a matching article on their website, so I just plucked the quickest result I could find.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
any coutry will be crap if it's run by crazy people..
I'm talking normal people... Lok at Vatican for example.
Runing a country on religous grounds and being a total fanatical ass are two completely different things.
Religion can be subvereted gor strange goels, if you have enough crazy people in the population, but so can the democratic principles or any other for that matter.. for instance, the US brining "peace" and "democracy" to the rest of the world... Yeah right.
Firstly, the Vatican isn't a country in the true sense of the word; whilst it's a sovereign state, it doesn't have a true economy - or a population who haven't actively volunteered to be there, or a democratic system of representation, or any issues of borders/border control/self defense... i.e. anyone at the Vatican is either a priest/security (who volunteer there) or a worshipper (who again volunteers and does not live there).
Unless you extend the Vaticans policies to cover that definition of country (i.e. take them as being matters of public policy were the Vatican a true nation), in which case you have serious problems - descrimination against homosexuality, or childless couples (cf the Vaticans call for a boycott on an Italian vote over IVF treatement); not to mention the outright lies perpetrated at times (specifically lies about the efficacy of condoms intended to dissuade their use - including scientifically flawed claims of ineffectuality re: the size of the aids virus and claims holes were poked in condoms at factories).
And lets not forget the notion of papal infallibility - in a real nation state, that would be Stalin-esque. Because papal decisions are made regarding optional belief, its seen as ok. But if papal decisions affected everyday life, such as law, free speech, freedom of religion....
-
My point is, we may have our differences and disagree with one another's povs, but we still get along...at least until we had Bush. Now, we're practically divided like the Civil War again, because well, he doesn't even try to appease liberals. He's just pissing off all of them and the healing won't begin until he's out.
It's all about divide and conquer.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
what so wrong with having a 100% christianic country? Or islamic? or jewish one for that matter?
Religion isa integral part of an individual and separation of religion and state kinda doesn't make sense, since if you are a beliver, you are a beliver 100% of the time.. not only at home
You don't hang your beliefs on a hook when you go about working (if you're a giverment officail).
Some people are outright afraid of states based on religion, with no real reason to back that fear. ( bad past experience deosn't really count)
So what exactly is a 100% Christian state? 100% your version of Christianity? My version? My next door neighbors version? The people down the streets version? What happens if your Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buhdist, and so on. Then we get intolerance, discrimination of religion, and so on and so forth.
Religion and state were mostly separated a while ago. It proved to be a disaster for more than one monarch. Eventually they were deposed, usually through violent revolution, and the secular states became a reality.
-
Religion and state were mostly separated a while ago. It proved to be a disaster for more than one monarch. Eventually they were deposed, usually through violent revolution, and the secular states became a reality.
I hope you mean that they were NOT seperated and that proved to be a disaster.......
-
Originally posted by karajorma
But man was not meant to fly! The bible says so! The Christian Republic of South Carolina has pledged to shoot down any of these devil machines that enter our airspace!
Just give us a year or two to invent a really big catapault to shoot them down with!
Word just in: Catapults are devices of devil science too! The first ones were invented by non-christians!
Our new weapon to destroy the air forces of the United States of Satanica will be a crossbow. We can use 'em against non-christians, the Pope said so!
-
That make you laugh, Ace, but did you know that back then, the Vatican tried to ban crossbows for they were viscious and traitorous weapons?
edit: that's not a joke, btw, it's true.
-
That's actually why I made the joke about crossbows, you weren't allowed to use them against christians.
But yeh can a-gainst the A-rabs, Satanica, and Only-Jesus-Can-Save-It-rael!
-
Nah, actually, you were not allowed to use them at all if you were christian. If you were not christian.. well, who cares? if you were not christian, you were ought to be hanged.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
I hope you mean that they were NOT seperated and that proved to be a disaster.......
Yes...they were one and the same. With the Pope usually having quite a bit of say over the various Catholic states in Europe and we had all sorts of wars and one of the Kings of England started his own Christian religion so he could divorce and all sorts of silly things.
Not that Nationalism did us any better really...
-
Henry VIII...
And now we have divorce, so you should be thankful. ;)
-
And his denomination was just as intolerant as the Catholics......
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Firstly, the Vatican isn't a country in the true sense of the word; whilst it's a sovereign state, it doesn't have a true economy - or a population who haven't actively volunteered to be there, or a democratic system of representation, or any issues of borders/border control/self defense... i.e. anyone at the Vatican is either a priest/security (who volunteer there) or a worshipper (who again volunteers and does not live there).
Unless you extend the Vaticans policies to cover that definition of country (i.e. take them as being matters of public policy were the Vatican a true nation), in which case you have serious problems - descrimination against homosexuality, or childless couples (cf the Vaticans call for a boycott on an Italian vote over IVF treatement); not to mention the outright lies perpetrated at times (specifically lies about the efficacy of condoms intended to dissuade their use - including scientifically flawed claims of ineffectuality re: the size of the aids virus and claims holes were poked in condoms at factories).
And lets not forget the notion of papal infallibility - in a real nation state, that would be Stalin-esque. Because papal decisions are made regarding optional belief, its seen as ok. But if papal decisions affected everyday life, such as law, free speech, freedom of religion....
Allright, Vatican isn't a realy good example, but you reallylike extreems don't you.
As for the lies thing - all I heard are rumors and I don't know how much truth is behind that, and neither do you.
As for my reasoning - a country being christian in it's core doesn't imply dicrimination against other religions at all, for attacking someone simply becouse he has a differnt faith is totaly anti-christianic.
I think you misunderstoof what I meant by a christianic country - I certanly didn't mean a land full of religious fanatics that run everything according by the holy book and burn infidels.
I should reallyexplain myself better, but actually a full explanation might take long to write...nad I got to go off-line now.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Allright, Vatican isn't a realy good example, but you reallylike extreems don't you.
As for the lies thing - all I heard are rumors and I don't know how much truth is behind that, and neither do you.
It's all factually documented; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm for example
In an interview, one of the Vatican's most senior cardinals Alfonso Lopez Trujillo suggested HIV could even pass through condoms.
"The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom," he says.
(snip)
Catherine Hankins, chief scientific advisor to UNAids, condemned the Church's comments.
"It is very unfortunate to have this type of misinformation being broadcast," she told BBC News Online.
"It is a concern. From a technical point of view, the statements are totally incorrect.
"Latex condoms are impermeable. They do prevent HIV transmission."
The WHO also attacked the Catholic Church's comments.
"Statements like this are quite dangerous, " a spokeswoman told BBC News Online.
"We are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people and currently affects around 42 million.
"There is so much evidence to show that condoms don't let sexually transmitted infections like HIV through.
"Anyone who says otherwise is just wrong."
(specifically; the aids virus cannot be transmitted on own, but within bodily fluid. The carrier fluid is too large to pass through the latex barrier; it's basic science. There's an ever worse statement around, but this was the first article I found)
I also forgot to mention the allegations of corruption and mafia involvement in the 'Devils banker' affair. I believe Archbishop Malinkus was specifically linked with corruption in that case, and the Vatican used diplomatic immunity to protect another Archbishop being investigated by Italian police over it.
Originally posted by TrashMan
As for my reasoning - a country being christian in it's core doesn't imply dicrimination against other religions at all, for attacking someone simply becouse he has a differnt faith is totaly anti-christianic.
I think you misunderstoof what I meant by a christianic country - I certanly didn't mean a land full of religious fanatics that run everything according by the holy book and burn infidels.
I should reallyexplain myself better, but actually a full explanation might take long to write...nad I got to go off-line now.
If a country is ran based solely upon one holy book or religion, it also explictly means any other religion is viewed as being irrelevant or inferior - that religion needn't necessarily be attacked, but it will not be supported against attack, nor will it be given an equal status with regards to right of religion. That is instant discrimination right there.
The likes of the Bible are highly open to interpretation and thus personal bias; but are also far less open to dissent once the ruling party or person has made their interpretation into law, because it's easy to make laws against something that's wrong 'because the bible says so'.
(I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the Spanish Inquisition yet, actually)
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Yes...they were one and the same. With the Pope usually having quite a bit of say over the various Catholic states in Europe and we had all sorts of wars and one of the Kings of England started his own Christian religion so he could divorce and all sorts of silly things.
It is slightly more complicated than that, both regarding the Vaticans power at this period, and regarding the divorce thing ;) (he could have divorced w/o a chism, you know :D)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
As for my reasoning - a country being christian in it's core doesn't imply dicrimination against other religions at all, for attacking someone simply becouse he has a differnt faith is totaly anti-christianic.
I think you misunderstoof what I meant by a christianic country - I certanly didn't mean a land full of religious fanatics that run everything according by the holy book and burn infidels.
Doesn't matter what the original intent is. You can define a religion however you want, but the actions of its followers speak louder than its scriptures, and fanaticism is an inevitable disease.
-
Again..it's irrelvenat.
I specificly said I didn't mean a country run by religios fanatics or run by blindly sticking to the Holy book...
And you two cpnstantly bring up exactly the opposite.
-
I keep getting the same reaction whenever I advocate anarchism. I say and I say and I say again and again that we don't need police, all we need is for everyone to mind their own business and regulate themselves, but people keep laughing in my face.
I mean, come on! How are crime, invasion and civil war inevitable consequences of having no government or police or military?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Again..it's irrelvenat.
I specificly said I didn't mean a country run by religios fanatics or run by blindly sticking to the Holy book...
What, you mean like a secular country? If you remove the discriminatory bits of religion, that's what you get; the 'essential' laws for society (like not stealing, killing, etc) aren't defined by religion but by societal or instinctive behavioural necessity, after all.... that's why they got written into holy books, to help enforce them.
I mean....say you remove the bits of religion that discriminate;
- you'd have to remove any restriction on religion of leader, for one thing. And it'd need to be democratic and thus representative.
- you'd also need to remove any bias or preferential treatment of a particular religion for sake of fairness.
- and it'd be unfair to discriminate against social groups on the basis of religion, too.
- couldn't have religious laws, except where the societal common good overlaps with religious edict. Otherwise you'd be forcing belief constraints onto people.
- not have any form of enforcement of religion; forcing people to go to church would be out if you wanted freedom of belief
- in fact, interpreting the Holy Book would be kind of out of the question too, because it leaves too much room for personal bias. Plus if you're not discriminating against religion of leaders/officials, you wouldn't be guaranteed a fair interpretation by those people.
I wouldn't say that sort of society could be defined as religious-led; in fact, I can't think of a single way in which a society could be run by religion without being unfair to someone. Can you define what a (for example) 'Christian' country would do different to, say, France or the UK?
Maybe before we had immigration and literacy, when populations were homogenous in belief and race, you could have a viable religious state that wasn't actively discriminating against it's inhabitants; but not now, when the democratic world is a melting pot by nature.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Washington state vows to "nuke" the mother****er successionists. Once I'm govenor.
We have nuclear weapons you know... but against the successionists we shall deploy our ultimate weapon: the computer virus known as Windows Vista.
might be more effective if they'd nuke the seccessionists ;)
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
I mean, come on! How are crime, invasion and civil war inevitable consequences of having no government or police or military?
if you think for five minutes you'll know...
anarchy will result in the formation of some form of government: wether it's mob rule, warlords (like afghanistan or Somalia) or something else.
Anarchy simply does not work if you want to maintain any form of society (i.e. people living in a group of any size) as living together needs agreements and rules.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
might be more effective if they'd nuke the seccessionists ;)
Damn it, he caught me :p
But it's because they're such successful folks because Jesus loves them!
Ivan, Blaise was being sarcastic ;)
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
I keep getting the same reaction whenever I advocate anarchism. I say and I say and I say again and again that we don't need police, all we need is for everyone to mind their own business and regulate themselves, but people keep laughing in my face.
I mean, come on! How are crime, invasion and civil war inevitable consequences of having no government or police or military?
The reason why is because human nature is self-destructive.
-
Actually human nature is "stuff for me, my family, and my friends."
It's when you try to take that stuff from other people's friends (or to the disadvantage of them) that you getconflicts + war.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Again..it's irrelvenat.
I specificly said I didn't mean a country run by religios fanatics or run by blindly sticking to the Holy book...
And you two cpnstantly bring up exactly the opposite.
No, it's not irrelevant; you're advocating a religious state that does not submit to fanaticism and idiocy, and we're arguing that this is not possible.
-
I wonder if anyone's spoken to the non and/or moderate Christians in South Carolina about this...
-
There are "non and/or moderate christians" in South Carolina? :D
-
Originally posted by Ace
Ivan, Blaise was being sarcastic ;)
:yes:
Fanaticism is an unfortunate consequence of any religion, ideology or philosophy. Well, really, it's a consequence of people, but that's a given.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
There are "non and/or moderate christians" in South Carolina? :D
I think they ate most of them, but I guess a few are kept in fridges or chained up in shacks somewhere.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
No, it's not irrelevant; you're advocating a religious state that does not submit to fanaticism and idiocy, and we're arguing that this is not possible.
You might be right you know.. I see fanaticms and idioticy everywhere withot any religion being involved at all :D
-
Originally posted by Ace
Ivan, Blaise was being sarcastic ;)
Well, I've seen too many people seriously advocating anarchism so I really can't say anymore :p
-
We should just give everyone nukes. That'd solve the nuclear-disarmanment thing (The USGov would no longer have any, although all its citizens would). And everyone would be a whole lot more civil to each other. :D
-
or a lot more dead.
EDIT: Whoa, 1776. My postcount ownz Britain. :D
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
I wonder if anyone's spoken to the non and/or moderate Christians in South Carolina about this...
All two of them?
In all seriousness, if there were to be one place in the US that this could possibly happen, it would be South Carolina. Other than the fact that a disproportional number of our military are stationed nearby, it'd be the perfect place to start (another) civil war :doubt:
What I found hilarious was the 1000 people swinging the vote to gain 12 house seats. Do they think the state is empty or something?