evidence for conservative Christian influence on US government

You have many leftist views and arguments so it's hard to tell that your schooling was conservative. But leftist ideas pervade the whole society by now, even people who think they are conservative have them. There is hardly a university anywhere that is free of them.I've read all the requisite stuff, I'm not following anybody's propaganda line. I've argued this for years now on message boards and I guess I've just lost enthusiasm for tracking down answers for all the same old arguments. That's a hazard of message boards, it is very hard to keep track of stuff. Yes I know that makes my contributions here less than convincing. Maybe eventually I'll lose my enthusiasm for even the slapdash attempts I make here. What's the point anyway. Actually it does seem to me I changed a few minds here and there. Too bad I'm not up to it any more.You don't understand what Auster wrote. Your idea that evil can't be determined in any objective sense is a symptom of the problem he is identifying. We have no will to prevent evil because we've redefined it and rendered it unrecognizable. It isn't that the terrorist is evil, it's that his philosophy is evil. If we wait until people with evil ideas act on them to cause harm, which is your definition of the point at which we are allowed to act, which is what we are in fact doing, we will not have a society left.

Not in Missouri, at least. The only case in which impotence is grounds for annulment is if the spouse concealed that situation, which falls under "fraud."I'm not sure what states or jurisdictions you're referring to. Marriage means many things. (Over 1000 if you look at the federal laws.) It's absolutely ludicrous to try to restrict it to one thing - one thing that only certain married couples choose to do, anyway. I mean you could just as easily say that marriage is about joining a bridge club, but that the fact that not all married people chose to do that wasn't relevant.Some married people choose to have or raise children. Some don't or can't. Since that doesn't affect the validity of any of those marriages, there's no more basis to say that marriage is for having children than it is for playing bridge. Homosexual couples are adopting children. They didn't have to do that; they chose to take on that crucial responsibility, a responsibility that benefits all society. What on Earth justifies denying the protections and privleges that would help them in that endeavor? Isn't that what a just society does? Help those who take on the responsibilities that benefit us all? That more than anything else is what I would like Faith to answer. Apparently she's all pro-family, right up to the point where the family isn't exactly like her own.

Gays will never "have children" in the way that marriage was designed to protect. Accommodating marriage to homosexuality is simply to kill the whole idea of marriage. Marriage has been staggering for years now in the climate of moral degeneration, might as well just kill it off forever, right? That will also kill off Western Civilization, not that anybody cares any more. You don't redefine ancient concepts without radical consequences.I'm sorry I guess I'm not up to arguing this now. Maybe later. I guess there are more radical leftists than you, but that makes the problem all the sadder.

Thank God we have people like Faith with us, with an absolutely perfect ability to predict the future and what everyone will wind up doing, to protect us. All we have to do, I guess, is ask her who the bad guys are going to turn out to be and get 'em first.Doesn't make any sense to me, I mean I figure you're innocent until you actually commit a crime, but I guess I don't have a hotline to a just and loving God, now do I?

Why does that matter? Are you saying that adoptions are illegitimate? That's absolutely arrogant and insulting to the millions of Americans who were raised by adoptive parents.

Jefferson hated religion, fine. Leave it at that.If the founders were as anti-Christian as so many claim they were I'd say they were a bunch of traitors who sold out their constituents, because the nation was 99% Christian in those days.Perhaps they WERE such traitors. Perhaps they merely SAID they wanted a government that reflected the will of the people. Perhaps they were all Enlightenment-educated men who purposely designed a secular government that would eventually kill off the Christian beliefs they despised that the country was built on.In which case they were evil men, the nation they designed was a lie and the great numbers of people who are still deceived by them should get together and secede from the union.

God, please do. Move to Mississippi, Kansas, Arkansas, and all your other states, and stop living on the backs of Blue state taxpayers. We're tired of paying your welfare and sending our children to fight your wars.Go on, secede already. The East and West coasts (plus Minnesota and Wisconsin) don't want you. You can take your president with you. (You'll have to; when Texas secedes he won't be constitutionally qualified for the office.) Seriously nothing would make me happier than to see you and your ilk with a country of your own to ruin, so that you'd stop fucking up mine.

Fine. Please supply the evidence to support yet another assertion.The rest of your post was simply ranting.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Believe what you choose. In my opinion the swift boat incident had a negative effect on Kerry that lasted longer than it probably should have. Nonethless, it had an effect on voters.

Crash, Missouri is a red state. Does that mean you're moving to the coast?

quote:

---

Accommodating marriage to homosexuality is simply to kill the whole idea of marriage.

---

Faith, where do you get this bullshit? Accommodating gay marriage will kill the whole idea of marriage? Has anyone told the heterosexuals of Massachusetts about this? Gays have been marrying in that state for over a year now. Has straight marriage been destroyed in Massachusetts?

quote:

---

I'm sorry I guess I'm not up to arguing this now.

---

Well why the hell not? You seem to know everything. This argument should be child's play for someone of your superior intellect.I know that a number of people here have commented on how smart you are. Apparently they feel it's commendable. Let me go on record right now as saying that I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks there's anything at all commendable about you. You are nothing but a hate-monger, no better than the Southern racists of the 50s and 60s. You have no problem whatsoever with denying civil rights protections to people you don't approve of. Granting equality under the law to gay people will not affect you in any way whatsoever, yet you are so reprehensible that you pretend that doing so will somehow violate your rights. What right would that be, Faith? Here's the constitution. Take a look. Find the provision that shows which of your rights will be violated if gay marriage is legalized.If you can't find it, then you should drop this stupid line of argument.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Just as soon as the wife finishes grad school we're Outie 5000. Though you might note that we reside in Columbia, the liberal oasis of the state.I'm a former Minnesotan, by the way.

Perhaps you are not understanding something. There are two rights going on here. The more important one is the right to create what you want, including a business, without enforced ideas of how it must function internally.As a business owner you will have to dicriminate, you simply HAVE TO. There is no way around that as you cannot employ everyone and anyone. To artificially force an owner to work with people he or she is uncomfortable with is ridiculous. That seems to me to be an important criteria. Nice slippery slope. The idea that if employers were allowed to discriminate, they all would is patently fallacious. What's more, if this did occur, the solution would be apparent... these minorities would create their own businesses and serve themselves.Interestingly enough minority businesses ARE allowed to discriminate. And govt contracting regs also allow for discrimination in favor of minority businesses which can of course... discriminate. That's a neat double standard which hits "majority" business owners (especially contractors) coming and going. Yes, yes you do. If you want to create a business and genuinely feel uncomfortable around someone of a certain type, why shouldn't you be allowed not to hire or employ such individuals? Because they can't get a job somewhere else? Because they will be unable to start a company of their own?You are not your brother's keeper. You should see it now. Some of your criticisms might have held up back when banks and gov't were defrauding minorities so that they could not get businesses of their own. That is not the case anymore.I have also stated where I believed such exemptions should not be allowed (gov't), and would even be supportive of companies having such hiring mandates placed on them when they enter the public sector (sold stocks).Frankly I don't see what the point is of forcing bigots to employ people they don't like and thus HELP the bigots stay in power.You also did not address my points on education initiatives.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Annulment or dissolution? In any case this is besides the point. If the discussion is where marriage BEGAN AS AN INSTITUTION, then historically and cross-culturally it was about sanctioning a relationship that will result (or the intended result) was children.That is why you found marriages occuring where alliances and property were not an issue, and NO marriages between gays in cultures that were openly practicing homosexuality. You HAD GAYS HELPING THEIR PARTNERS WED FOR CHILDREN.There is simply no escaping these facts. That is where the common concept and institution of marriage began and how it existed for much of history.There is no question that it has changed over time, and I have already agreed with you on this matter. That is why discussing what present day Missouri laws have on their books is irrelevant to my point about its history, which you claimed to be about property (and is patently false).On a side note however, if you are claiming that you do not understand or believe that lack of having children has commonly been held as grounds for divorce, as well as sex being the "consumation" of the marriage (and so impotence from the beginning may be grounds for considering the contract void), regardless of what Missouri states, then I find you less than credible. You are correct. At this point in time it does mean many things. I had two comments in my post, the first was regard to its common origin (where I disputed your claim), and the second on its current nature (which I agreed).One cannot look at the variability today in order to make claims about its origins in human society. The only comment one can make is that given that it has been changing and adapting over time... why not now? Shall we trap it in amber? Why?I'm on your side in not understanding that necessity. Uhhhh, liberals aren't ones to throw stones on THAT issue. While most allow for ONE additional difference (same sex parents), they are often just as opposed to any other changes in family constitution or practices. And the answer is the same, to protect the children of course!I don't know where you stand on allowing people to adopt children, but you might want to review if there are any conditions you'd be setting on possible adoptions that have nothing to do with objective criteria for harming a child. I know a couple people around here have issues with families "different" than their own perception.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Which must give way to the right to eat, have shelter, and live. We wouldn't have laws against it if it hadn't been pandemic at one point. Fallacious? I'd say we've observed it. Because they have a right to eat that's more important than your right to fire whomever you want. You don't have to accept their homosexuality. You just can't fire them for it.So you still haven't answered my question. I'm not sure which points you're referring to.