yes! yes we are quite happy to go around offing those who disagree, get in our way, or just look different. i only say that much of it is done in the name of religion, the same religions that advocate peace and love and tolerance.

"I don’t recall making such a connection, or any preclusion."

nope, i did as a couterpoint when you said that the people's beliefs are reflected in the candidates they put in office.

i only pointed out those ancient laws to illustrate that way before christianity, there were laws that dealt with crime...mdern civilization does not apply the laws we spoke of because they are set forth in the bible (specifically exodus, as you mentioned) or any other religious text, we do so because they have been, and always will be, a means of contolling a human's baser nature that we both have agreed exists.


on a personal note, let me add that i am sorry your week was tainted by something unpleasant.

I have to admit i profound admitration to both of you for keeping this conversation civil, wyndhy for your stunning dipiction of veiws i partly myself share.

jseal for your passionat and heartfelt comitment to your own views displayed whit respect to peopel who dont share it.

Most of the time from both sides this is not the case, mostly probobly becase we dont understand each other, you both show a level of tolerance that i wish was the norm for the world.

Alas it is not.

My problem whit religon in politics and while it dont say it i'm fairly sure that this law is based on a religus moral depictment from the past brought back to justefy an arcaic morality not befiting todays sosaity... my problem is that there is no evidents that a lack of 'god' is the reason for a 'Moral' decay In sweden for exampel we have a very very low religus movment and we do not see the kind of violence that we see over there... so from our point of veiw the reason for your violence and decay (i'm not sure i agree that it's as bad as that) is the cause of state being to closly knitted together whit the religus movments.

It's all about prespectiv, I belive strongly that peopel should have the right to belive what they want, they should be alowd to practis that to the full exstent of there belifes... but it need to stop at my door, and my life... if i dont want it i should not have to deal whit it.

Belife should be a private desition of faith, it should not be in school... however i do belive peopel should be tought ABOUT religon they should learn about all the faiths... about all cultures about the wounderfull stories depicted in their words...

I'm an Athiest, today regretfully that have turned in to a bad word, shamefully when asked when peopel would trust the least they answered "an Athiest" An Athiest is a person who belive that there is no God. atleast by my definition and most peopel i know, i respect religon and while i dont belive i love to read about it... i'm even considering becoming a teacher of religon on highscool level... and i would teach about all the wounderfull things of those religons i would teach the history and what they belive, even if i dont.

I kind of got side tracked alittle but i think i'm point would be that, Religon is not what should be the bases of Morality, becase Religon can be interpreted so very much by difrent peopel... Morality most be based on sound judgment of right and wrong... peopel should not be evicted becase they dont fall under a morality system that say that it's not right for two peopel to live together becase they want to... and dont want to be married.

To me Morality is not something writen in a book and interpreted by a belife system... it must be written in our hearts and minds and conected by truths and justice.

Admiral

Admiral,

Thank you. I too wish that more people were tolerant towards people who are different. I must, however, agree with you that many are not.

While atheism may not currently be as attractive as you feel it should be, be patient. In the minds of many, it was, for many years, closely associated with Communism, and may have picked up some negative connotations from that discredited ideology.

maybe
 

Comunisem is probobly part of the problem, but mostly i think it have to do that peopel have been presented whit the wrong view of what an Athiest is we are often said to be argoant and selfrightus becase we belive that "there is noting greater then ourself." that we are moraly inept becase we dont supply to an idea that make us acountabul to something ells and... this is something that i feel insulted about. "If we dont belive in hell what stopping us from just comiting murder and theft if we dont belive that there is any ramefications to our actions."

This is not the belife of any bealivers of any faith that i call freinds, but it's still the most frecuent question i get when i visit USA.

Our belive's are what we make thenm, our life's are what we make then... and most importantly it's our actions not our words that should define us and that apply to both side of the line of faith.

I think my point to all this is very simpel, the peopel who are enacting this law show a level of personal action that we by any sencabul defenition of morality wheter based on faith or personal convition are WRONG!

And i think that is something that men and women of all faith whit a sence of morality and ethics that belong ín our time can agree on.

Admiral,

I agree that atheism has a bit of an image problem. You’ll need to market the ideals differently if you want to “sell the product” as we say in business.

At the risk of being obtuse, what law are you referring to?

Town won't let unmarried parents live together :) what this post was origonaly about

Admiral,

Well, in the event that I were to be in a position where my vote would influence the outcome of such a development, and I was also in a position to vote my conscience, (a most unlikely chain of events) then I too would vote to enable the Lovings and the Shelltracks of this world to live together, as they wish.

That being said, I think that if you do the research, you will find that that what is at issue is not a law, but the fact that Ms. Shelltrack's and Mr. Loving's cohabitation arrangements are at variance with occupancy regulations for Black Jack City housing.

Occupancy regulations are well within the scope of local governmental authority. Here in Baltimore, a family can be evicted from subsidized housing if any of the occupants are convicted of drug trafficking. A bit draconian in my opinion, but there you are.