Any serious Christians left?

You are, if I understand you correctly, saying that elected representatives voted on this bill. Representatives that were elected by the people to run things for them.

If you are unhappy with the decisions they make....vote them out. You can't blame everything on religion. Well, you can....but that doesn't make it right.

Intrepid- I don't think that you quite understand my "take" on things. Minor children need to be protected. If their parents are doing things that are detrimental to their children, society needs to step in.

The obvious problem here, is what is to be considered, "detrimental", and how much power the government should have to control the rights of children. It is a very tricky subject, and there are no easy answers.

Obviously, if a child is beaten, starved, and locked in a closet for punishment, most of us would agree that that sort of behavior constitutes child abuse, and the parents need to answer for that.

The anti-internet gambling law as not voted in a general election or for a specific state/county. It was a law passed in house of representatives for the entire country. The House voted 317-93 in favor of the bill being passed. Majorities of Republican and Democrats voted for this measure.

As far as all of them being Christian or religous I would venture to say that most of them are and by a very large majority.

If you'd like I can find several statements from key supporters of this bill talking about it's religious and family value's implications. Religion is a key reason that this bill was passed. I've read several religous news websites and they are raving about the passage of this bill.

The problem for me is that I could drive 30 miles to the nearest Indian casino and play my poker and be perfectally legal, but it was much more convient to play at home. Now that's gone and for no good reason.

More religious and government intrusion into my life and people wonder why more and more people are dissatisfied with our country and religion in general.

This bill, more than any other, and on several different levels has pissed more people off lately.

Arella Mae wrote:

maporsche wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

Definitely sucks about the online gambling thing - helluva tax revenue stream just tossed away. However, from a purely pragmatic POV, a Federal ban is about the only way it coulda gone, given the nature of the 'net, unambiguous Federal wagering laws and the tangle of state laws pertaining to wagering.

Yeah, if you're going to ban it, a federal law is the only way to go. But c'mon, so much for the party of 'less government interference'.

And so much for the Christian POV of personal choice/freedom/free will/etc.

I sincerely doubt you would have been upset if they had voted your way right? You think they might not have liked it if your desires were met here? Stop trying to blame religion! People vote their conscience whatever that may derive from. You vote yours and they vote theirs. There is no difference. WE ALL HAVE THE SAME EXACT RIGHT. (Cap for emphasis only.)

What reason or right does anyone have to not like what I do in the privacy of my own home if it does not affect them?

Arella Mae wrote:

Phoenix, I do understand where you are coming from. But I am firm on how I believe in this situation.

I think this summarizes the situation perfectly. I've been reading along thinking Phoenix might actually be drilling through the concrete walls that surround Arella's thought process. I've tried, others have tried, dys calls it pissing in the wind, but it's obvious to me that Arella continues to believe that she has the right to impose her views on others, be they religious views, moral views, or social views.

JPB wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:

Phoenix, I do understand where you are coming from. But I am firm on how I believe in this situation.

I think this summarizes the situation perfectly. I've been reading along thinking Phoenix might actually be drilling through the concrete walls that surround Arella's thought process. I've tried, others have tried, dys calls it pissing in the wind, but it's obvious to me that Arella continues to believe that she has the right to impose her views on others, be they religious views, moral views, or social views.

Why is it so hard for you and others to accept that you do the very same thing when you vote? You vote for what you think is right, correct? How is that any different than I or anyone else votes?

Arella Mae wrote:

JPB wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:

Phoenix, I do understand where you are coming from. But I am firm on how I believe in this situation.

I think this summarizes the situation perfectly. I've been reading along thinking Phoenix might actually be drilling through the concrete walls that surround Arella's thought process. I've tried, others have tried, dys calls it pissing in the wind, but it's obvious to me that Arella continues to believe that she has the right to impose her views on others, be they religious views, moral views, or social views.

Why is it so hard for you and others to accept that you do the very same thing when you vote? You vote for what you think is right, correct? How is that any different than I or anyone else votes?

You vote to prevent others' rights.

But if they kill the child (abortion) , that's ok? Seems like a clear cut example of child abuse if the child ends up dead.

Arella Mae wrote:

JPB wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:

Phoenix, I do understand where you are coming from. But I am firm on how I believe in this situation.

I think this summarizes the situation perfectly. I've been reading along thinking Phoenix might actually be drilling through the concrete walls that surround Arella's thought process. I've tried, others have tried, dys calls it pissing in the wind, but it's obvious to me that Arella continues to believe that she has the right to impose her views on others, be they religious views, moral views, or social views.

Why is it so hard for you and others to accept that you do the very same thing when you vote? You vote for what you think is right, correct? How is that any different than I or anyone else votes?

You vote to prevent others' rights.

"Why is it so hard for you and others to accept that you do the very same thing when you vote? You vote for what you think is right, correct? How is that any different than I or anyone else votes?"

Ok so I'm going to try a very simple logic equation here, the content is not meaningfull but the idea is. In Colorado for example which was politically organized by Lutherans, It is illegal to buy or sell a boat/car/truck on Sunday; not only that If someone should want to purchase a nice wine to have with their roast duck on sunday evening, can't do it, it's also against the law. On the other hand anyone can go into a bar on any sunday and drin whisky till all hours of the night then get in their car and drive home. Now Arella I can't see how any of these laws are other than simply restrictive on others while not supporting your moral values in any way. You are not restricted at all but your theory of supporting laws because you believe they are correct, living in the US of A does connote a responsibility about respecting the values of others but that, and herein lies the wall you run against here with many of us, respecting the rights of others when it does not interfere with your rights is just plain wrong. I should have the legal right to purchase a boat (or anything else I want on Sunday)

"The laws are set up the way they are for a reason; because it was felt to be the best solution."

As were, no doubt, the laws prohibiting women, minorities the right to vote, the laws allowing slavery, indentured servitude etc etc etc.

"Then I suggest you get together enough people to lobby to change the law, dys. That is how it works. If you don't like it, then do something to change it. I don't have a problem with that at all and I would back your right to lobby to change the law in a heartbeat. I may not vote for the law (generalized) but I will support your right to try to change it."

Arella,

Would you support my right to lobby to have your rights taken away?

"Then I suggest you get together enough people to lobby to change the law, dys. That is how it works. If you don't like it, then do something to change it. I don't have a problem with that at all and I would back your right to lobby to change the law in a heartbeat. I may not vote for the law (generalized) but I will support your right to try to change it."

Arella,

Would you support my right to lobby to have your rights taken away?

dyslexia wrote:

"The laws are set up the way they are for a reason; because it was felt to be the best solution."

As were, no doubt, the laws prohibiting women, minorities the right to vote, the laws allowing slavery, indentured servitude etc etc etc.

And people lobbied to change those laws, right? And changes were made? Imagine that, dys!