Any serious Christians left?

ArellaMae wrote:

We have had this discussion before. I told you that yes, I can see how you believe that and come to that conclusion and yes, in a sense I can even see how I might be denying a right. I have never denied that. However, if these things are not legal and are put on the ballot to be legal those RIGHTS aren't there in the first place FOR ANYONE so how can I take away something they don't even have?

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I can see the difference, in the case of gay marriage, which has not yet been deemed legal in many cases. Arella Mae, not so long ago it was illegal for black and white people to marry in your part of the country. For many years the religious groups in the area vigorously supported that concept. The whole concept was considered anathema to the "good" folks who supported that law, which was considered as coming from god. Here is a perfect example of where religion had an the effect of denying rights to people.

I am not sure about the gambling issue, as I am unclear as to the legal status before the bill was put before the voters. (Actually, I really did not pay too much attention to it, as I don't consider it a major issue It was the concept that I considered important).

As far as abortions are concerned, they are legal according to the law of the land. There are many radical Christians, who would attempt to chip away at a woman's right to the self determination of her own body. I consider any attempt to do away with even a small part of Roe vs. Wade as an action whereby a small portion of the population, because of their religious beliefs, are attempting to abrogate a legal reproductive right.[/quote

[color=darkblue]Your only LEGAL recourse in this is to lobby to have it changed and vote your conscience. Other than that, all we can do is beat the horse some more.[/color]

The British colony of Maryland was the first to pass an anti-miscegenation law (1664).[4] In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, often based on controversial interpretations of the Bible, particularly the story of Phinehas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

Oh, I found this quote in reference to miscegenation, but my post had already been replied to before I edited my post:

Quote:

The British colony of Maryland was the first to pass an anti-miscegenation law (1664).[4] In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, often based on controversial interpretations of the Bible, particularly the story of Phinehas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

my right to vote.....my right to vote.....my right to vote.....my right to vote....ad nauseum.

We don't have to prove anything that you have a right to vote. You're the one making it the primary issue; we're not.

The Question:

Since there seems to be no evidence for casino gambling causing an increase in crime (when population increases are also considered), why do you support making it illegal?

According to SOME sources this may be the case. According to OTHER sources it isn't. You want more links on gambling related crimess? Must we have an internet link war here? From what I have read, etc., in my opinion, gambling can cause an increase in the crime rate.

echi wrote:

Maybe you're not sure exactly why you think it's wrong. I can accept that.

Echi, I am a 50 year old woman for pete's sake! I'm not some stupid child who cannot make up their mind about things.

echi wrote:

(At this point, I am mainly concerned with my own ability to form a clear question.)

It's not your ability to form a clear question that caused me to misunderstand Echi. I think it's more of a matter of you just don't accept my answers because they don't "meet your standards"?

Arella Mae wrote:

According to SOME sources this may be the case. According to OTHER sources it isn't. You want more links on gambling related crimess? Must we have an internet link war here? From what I have read, etc., in my opinion, gambling can cause an increase in the crime rate.

You may be right, but the links you have provided, so far, do not show that (still, I honestly appreciate the effort). I will look, myself, for some evidence that supports your position. If I actually find any, maybe you and I can team-up and kick some heathen ass!

"Okay, Okay!!"

Well, I think it's because they don't meet the standards set by the question! I'm asking you to communicate your thought process. If you honestly don't understand that then, as far as I'm concerned, it is due to a lack of communication skills on my end.

United States Constitution (Excerpts)

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Arella Mae- I don't think that anyone is questioning your right to vote based on your conscience. In my understanding the question is that your choices are based, not on a well thought out understanding of the issues, but what you think that the god in your bible wants you to do.

In many cases, the radical Christian interpretation of the bible tends to abridge personal freedoms, especially in areas of women's rights, reproduction and sexuality. Radical religions, including the Taliban, also are extremely concerned with these same issues.

I would suspect that you get a lot of your ideas from your preacher. [/color][/b]

Arella Mae- I don't think that anyone is questioning your right to vote based on your conscience. In my understanding the question is that your choices are based, not on a well thought out understanding of the issues, but what you think that the god in your bible wants you to do.

In many cases, the radical Christian interpretation of the bible tends to abridge personal freedoms, especially in areas of women's rights, reproduction and sexuality. Radical religions, including the Taliban, also are extremely concerned with these same issues.

I would suspect that you get a lot of your ideas from your preacher. [/color][/b]

A M, as said severally by assorted participants in this discussion, nobody is challenging your right to think or to vote as you see fit, nobody advocates abridging, ammending, or otherwise altering, restricting, or limiting your rights, period. The rights guaranteed by (not PROVIDED by, for The US Constitution is merely the instrument by which The Government of The United States is obliged to guarantee inherrent, inalienable rights), however, render the religionist premise by which apparently you determine the criteria for your voting decisions incompatible with the precepts and tenets of The US Constitution.

Quote:

United States Constitution (Excerpts)

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now, again, you are within your rights to think and act as apparently you do in such regard. That not withstanding, The Constitution of The United States precludes Congress from enacting your wishes as they are formulated.

Oh, and just FYI, c. i. is a natural-born US citizen.

Let me ask you this, Phoenix. Are you essentially telling me I am wrong for basing my votes on religious reasons (no matter how small or large that percentage of my vote it is)? You understand my choices are based on a "not well thought out understanding of the issues..."????? Uh, did you miss the post about how I gather as much information on the issues as possible so that I have a clear understanding of them?

Arella Mae- OK, so you state that you gather as much information as you can to make an educated vote. Now, what would happen, if after you gathered all the information, and discovered that you were in disagreement with your church over an issue. Would you vote according to the conclusions that you made after researching the issue, or would you vote along with your church's teachings?[/color]

Here's another question. Have you ever believed that there was something in your church's teachings that was absolutely WRONG? Did you ever discover something in the bible that you believed was absolutely wrong? If so, did you make your thoughts on the subject known?

Arella Mae- OK, what you have said sounds reasonable. But what if you read something in the bible with which you disagreed?