Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Bush

15 (16.9%)

Kerry

38 (42.7%)

Nader

3 (3.4%)

e. none of the above

9 (10.1%)

Not a citizen but...Bush

2 (2.2%)

Not a citizen but...Kerry

17 (19.1%)

Not a citizen but...Nader

5 (5.6%)

Total Members Voted: 85

[TimB]

Tinkering with the Constitution would be a great travesty and would most likely precipitate the fall that was mentioned earlier in this thread. That is a can of worms that does not need to be opened. Most certainly not for a statement of narrow-minded, religious bias.

No disagreement here.  I'd argue that any amendment should wait 25 years before being ratified so we have a chance to really think about its impact and remove "issue of the moment" kinda stuff.

I'm originally British (now bi-national) and the law there is totally flexible.  I remember my British Constitution (btw there is no such thing) teacher saying that you could pass a law discriminating against people with red hair and it'd be legal if passed by (at that time) both Houses of Parliament and signed into law.

-=Tim=-

[Griff]

Why can't we just remove the word marriage from all legal documents and substitute it with "civil union

Whats next?

"Farm animal union"

[Matt]

Whats next?

"Farm animal union"

Sounds like something Wallace would have said from the steps of the school.

[skidoo]

I understand that if I want to turn right or left, it's my (perceived) choice.  If nobody else is in the car, whose choice is it?  God's? Maybe.  I assume that God guided my ultimate choice of right or left - hence, no accident. I may be saying that someone(thing) may "assist" that choice, but I don't know it.

I don't usually talk about religion much because I'm not religious and it confuses me too much
However, whenever I find myself in conversation with a religious person, I sometimes will ask (as many do) "If there is a God, then why is there so much bad in the world? Why do people kill, etc...". This is always answered with "Because He gave us free-will."
Now, if we, as humans posess "free-will" (yes, that is an ambiguous term, but I'll let people use their common sense on that one... probably not a good idea ), then the whole Eve eating the apple thing holds, and all seems fair enough.
However, you argue that humans don't actually posess free-will at all.. we are "guided" in our ultimate choices of left or right. Where does that leave poor Eve? And doesn't that make life pretty darn pointless?

I dunno... just rambling really. It's all too confusing for me...

Just as the concept of infinity is in actuality beyond our grasp, the faculty of free will existing contemporaneously with an omniscient, omnipotent G-d is utterly incomprehensible. Aristotelian Logic makes the two mutually exclusive.

Now, does that mean this logic is the be-all, end-all, final word on the human mind? Absolutely not. Goedel's Theorem suggests that there exists something beyond the finite system of our experience, that probably somehow "illuminates" the infinitude of the Universe, and ergo explains the man/G-d "relationship." Nobody's discovered it yet, or even formulated an hypothesis that can instruct us on how to speak of it.

That's where the power of metaphor comes in. It has served us well (e.g. in quantum physics), and I think it will likely be an essential tool in this final puzzle.

[KingSparta]

Looks Like Kerry Is Winning.