Quote:

---

3. No. Only because I don't see where Judeo-Christian law has been applied. When was the last time you had to sacrifice a goat?

4. No. If for nothing else, its important for government to remember that they are not the highest power. Also, the term "God" can be applied to many religions and beliefs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
Kwicko wrote:


"Will you agree to never try to force your beliefs on me through force (of law or other)?

Will you support a woman's right to choose when or whether to have children?

Will you support the banning of Judeo-Christian law in this country, just as so many insist that we must unite to ban Sharia law in this country?

Will you support the doing away with such religion-based pablum as posting the Ten Commandments in some courthouses, printing "In God We Trust" on our currency, and adding unnecessary clause like "under God" to our Pledge of Allegiance?"

1. Yes.

2. Yes

3. No. Only because I don't see where Judeo-Christian law has been applied. When was the last time you had to sacrifice a goat?

---

Quote:

---

4. No. If for nothing else, its important for government to remember that they are not the highest power. Also, the term "God" can be applied to many religions and beliefs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

3. No. Only because I don't see where Judeo-Christian law has been applied. When was the last time you had to sacrifice a goat?

4. No. If for nothing else, its important for government to remember that they are not the highest power. Also, the term "God" can be applied to many religions and beliefs.

---

*off-skance glance*

3. Christians don't sacrifice goats. The whole messiah and saviour thing was supposed to make it unnecessary. What is being referred to obviously is gay rights and certain much debated requirements being considered for schools.

4. ...And the higher power is the public, not religion. Scary thought.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Judeo might be more rule intensive, but Christian law would be really simple. Love God and Love all people, that's what all the laws of the prophets depend upon. But that's no way to organize a government. Could make for a happy anarchy I suppose...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
... when a women gets prego...and the guy doesnt want it and she keeps it anyway..the dude is off the hook financially..

Here's your shock for the day: I agree with Kane!


And I disagree with you both. If a man really really really doesn't want to be on the financial hook for a child - he can make sure he doesn't generate any. It's that simple. IMO he's an idiot if he doesn't take precautions and creates a baby. And then, my god, is shocked, SHOCKED that he might have some financial responsibility for what he equally participated in creating.

Furthermore, I think the laws regarding child abandonment should be made to nail both parties equally, not just the woman because she was the last person able to walk away.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Judeo might be more rule intensive, but Christian law would be really simple. Love God and Love all people, that's what all the laws of the prophets depend upon. But that's no way to organize a government. Could make for a happy anarchy I suppose...

---

Might be really simple, IF you're a Christian.

Under your "simple" Christian law, I'd likely be imprisoned or put to death, unless I was willing to lie about my beliefs and take a false oath to "love god" - a god which I don't believe in, thereby betraying my OWN beliefs by taking any such oath.



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

---