marijuana legalization

[øbliteration]

im pretty sure twocows is leagues ahead of you

he's right

youre wrong

hahaha ok bro. whatever you say. any reason?

Anyway, from what I can see, Agent Cobalt is just making his argument sound really dumb what with his mentions of God and all. Religion has no place in this matter.

 

[twocows]

[jq]I'm surprised nobody's called you out on this. BIIIG citation needed. As I hear it, 20-somethings smoke even more marijuana than high school students.[/jq]

This isn't wikipedia. Also as "you hear it" might need a citation too :3

Also, you never really answered me. Although your sources might say that more 20+ year olds smoke it, still an abundance of 13-21 y/o smoke it and it would STILL be illegal for them.

The point I made was that anybody can come up with stuff that seems plausible, but is simply incorrect. This may not be Wikipedia, but the burden of proof is always on you to prove that your assertions are correct. My statement was really just to prove a point (that anyone can make stuff up), but if you want a source, here you go. According to this link (quick Google on "marijuana use by age"), an estimated 7% of 12-17 year-olds use marijuana and 16% of 18-25 year-olds use it (statistics are for the US in 2006-2007).

I think legalizing marijuana for higher age groups would actually lower the usage among minors. As it is, the primary source of marijuana is illegal dealers, who don't really care how old you are. If the primary source was a regulated industry that didn't sell to minors, it would conceivably be harder for minors to get it.

 

[DreamQueen]

If the primary source was a regulated industry that didn't sell to minors, it would conceivably be harder for minors to get it.

surrreee.

In the same way it's difficult for minors to get ahold of alcohol.

They'd just ask an adult/older sibling to go in and buy it for them. If anything, it'd be way easier to get.

 

[Luck]

surrreee.

In the same way it's difficult for minors to get ahold of alcohol.

They'd just ask an adult/older sibling to go in and buy it for them. If anything, it'd be way easier to get.

Your logic is flawless.
Maybe that doesn't happen because most adults are...mature perhaps?

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

There's different stances you can take on this - in a way it's a good idea to legalize it and then in another it's a bad idea.

Marijuana is only a little less harmful than alcohol, but it has many of the same properties - alcohol can lead to the person who is taking it doing some weird and crazy things, but if used in moderation then it won't cause any harm. However the weird and crazy things you do on marijuana are different to the weird and crazy things you do with alcohol. Like at a party people might go "hey, stay away from that guy, he's been drinking and might start a fight", but they won't go "woah, stay away from that dude, he's been smoking marijuana, he might go and lie down on the couch". Sure, marijuana may knock one or two years off your life, but so does drinking alcohol. Marijuana could be taxed, just like alcohol, and bring in a whole new form of revenue for any government. It's been working fine in Amsterdam - they legalized marijuana and found that less people are using it now as they were when it was illegal (strange, no?). There's actually a town somewhere in the world (I think it's called Nimbin or something strange similar to that) where instead of using money they use marijuana as a form of currency. But it's only in this one town, there's police there but they turn a blind eye to it because nobody is hurting anybody.

At the moment, marijuana is called "a gateway to other drugs". This is because at the present time you can only buy marijuana from drug dealers (or run the risk of growing it yourself), and they'll usually pressure you into taking something harder. If alcohol was illegal from the start then alcohol could have been called the gateway as well. On the streets, marijuana is bought but is often laced with other drugs so that the person will get addicted to the other drugs and therefore buy more off the dealer. If people grew marijuana in their backyards, they'd know what they are getting is pure and not mixed with other stuff. I'm being serious, they've found traces of horrid things in other drugs being mixed - faeces, toenails, even semen in some cases. If other drugs were lightly put into marijuana, that's what you're inhaling. So if you could grow your own, you know it's safe (well, as far as taking marijuana can be safe). If it was legalized it'd probably still come under the laws of no driving under the influence of drugs anyway, so the only problem there is watching out for the same idiots who drink and drive.

The only reason marijuana might not be legalized is because of taxation reasons. Anybody can grow marijuana in their backyard, and if it was legalized, there'd be no stopping people growing stuff in their backyard. Sure, they could make it illegal to grow the drug in your backyard but legal to purchase it, but there'd still be more people growing it in their backyard than people going out and buying drugs. Therefore there wouldn't be a tax on it, and unless it brings in more money a government won't change its stance on anything. But it would be a good idea apart from this tax issue - if the tax did come in, then they'd be able to use that to help sick people in hospitals, help the homeless, put more into police to crack down on the drug dealers who are dealing harder drugs and get rid of them (as in put them in jail, not kill them, obviously. And "crack down" wasn't a pun, I just realised it may be interpreted that way, no, it just means put more effort into it, finish it off).

 

[Vanilla Kitsune]

I'm actually tied on my decision.

I've never tried pot, and refuse to even look at it. That goes with all drugs tbh. If someone else wants to smoke, let them. It's not fair going to jail for a "victimless crime". We could actually clear out some space for REAL offenders who murder and what not. It would be nice to see the crime rates go down for once.

However, like all drugs, it can be addictive. Regardless if the addiction rate is low, it would impact someone in some way. The results can be both positive and negative. The drug dealers are cunning, so its impossible to know what you actually bought when you purchased the marijuana. Its a dangerous business. There are health risks too but just like Amachi said though, not everyone who smokes cigarettes gets cancer so idk.

So, yeah. I'm kinda for both. :/

 

[øbliteration]

Your logic is flawless.
Maybe that doesn't happen because most adults are...mature perhaps?

Which is why so many adults don't deal drugs or sell tobacco and alcohol.

[/rolleyes]

 

[Luck]

Which is why so many adults don't deal drugs or sell tobacco and alcohol.

[/rolleyes]

That is really strange, I could have sworn that a bartender was a legal job.
Oh, me and my fantasies.

 

[Agent Cobalt]

Oh, that just sounds absolutely sublime. Ooh, maybe we can have another crusade, where we go invade the Middle East in the name of God. And since we're on the side of God, we can even take stuff that doesn't belong to us!

Well sure, I mean the First Crusade to take back the holy land from Muslim conquerors was a completely justified campai- waaaiiit a second! Is that sarcasm? D'OH! As if keeping this country how it was intended is the same as leading an Inquisition or any other analogy that makes no sense.

Keep your magic book out of the government, please.

Oh that's nice. So are the Declaration and Constitution magic documents? Seriously, I was never so crass about this topic, even back when I was an atheist.

I don't care what you believe in, but forcing your morals down our throats by way of law is fascism, plain and simple.

That's... not what fascism is at all. Fascism is a socialist ideology that in fact advocated secularism and the removal of God from the public square. I don't know why it is, but ever since WWII ended, people seem to use the word "fascist" to describe anything they disagree with or don't like.

Maybe our government was created with Judeo-Christian values in mind, but there's a reason that there's no mention of God in any of the founding legal documents (and no, the Declaration is not a legal document).

First you say founding documents, then legal documents. Which do you mean? The Declaration of Independence isn't a "legal" document in that it doesn't establish any laws, but it's still a founding document- it is what followed the Lee Resolution which was law passed by the Continental Congress. So, yeah, God is mentioned. God is mentioned five times in the Declaration of Independence. Actually, the Declaration is law because it's included as part of the Organic Laws forming US code.

Our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, mentions God in Article XIII.

The Constitution also mentions God. "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Even then, what purpose would there be to include God in the Constitution at length since the Constitution is nothing more than a social contract, a pact amongst the people and states? The Articles of Confederation counts as a constitution and was our first, and it does indeed mention God.

Another "founding" document is the Northwest Ordinance. This too mentions the importance of God in Article 3.

You want "historical significance?" Here's some: America was founded partially because Britain was trying to cram the King's version of Christianity down its peoples' throats. Government-sponsored religion is exactly what this country was founded to prevent.

"America" (as you put it) being founded and the United States being founded are two different things. You're talking specifically about colonial America, specifically the Puritans. It was the Puritan pilgrims that came to the America's due to persecution by the English. And yet, they were not persecuted for being nonreligious, now were they? They were persecuted for their radical religiosity. The Puritans established a *very* Christian society in the colonies. Even today, secularists use Puritanism as an insult for "ultra-Christians." It doesn't support your argument for secularism to refer to the Puritans being victims of religious discrimination, considering they ended up establishing one of the most religious societies in American history, if not a near theocracy.

You do at least acknowledge an important part of history though, even if for the wrong reasons. All of the colonies in America had their own unique beginning, except the Carolinas which were once one territory but split over inter-fighting. The Virginia/Jamestown Colony was founded in part to spread Christianity/English Protestantism. The Massachusetts Bay/Plymouth Colony was established solely because of religion. The Puritans fled England because they were persecuted for their literal interpretation of the Bible. Biblical literalists. These were the Mayflower people. New Hampshire was also founded by Puritans. They in effect established their religion into force with the Cambridge Agreement until it was revoked by the British. Maryland was formed as a home for all Christians, and eventually Catholicism. Connecticut/New Haven/Saybrook Colony was specifically founded because of religion. It was founded by Congregationalists/Puritans that left Boston, Massachusetts because they didn't think it was religious enough there. They didn't think Massachusetts Puritans were Puritan enough. Pennsylvania was the home for the Quakers. Rhode Island/Providence Plantation Colony was founded by Puritan/Baptist separatist lead by Roger Williams for religious freedom. Roger Williams was a theologian. He also established one of the first churches in America. New York/New Netherland/New Amsterdam established the Dutch Reformed Church. New Amsterdam, now New York City, was home to many Jews as well. New Jersey was settled by Congregationalists, Puritans, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, Quakers and many others. Delaware was first founded by Scandinavian Lutherans and Dutch Reformed. The Carolinas once one territory, then split over conflict, were founded with Anglicanism and the Church of England. Many dissenting denominations cemented their authority in the colony/colonies due to the church's weak hold. And lastly, Georgia, the Australia of the Thirteen Colonies was a place of freedom for Protestant Christians and Jews.

So yes, many people fled England and Europe because of persecution, but it was so they could establish societies and colonies where their religions prevailed. In many cases they were more religious and observant than the English. No, the Founders and Framers didn't want to prevent government-sponsored religion. They promoted it. Almost all of the colonies and states had established religions before, during, and after the revolutionary period. None of the Founders saw any conflict with that fact and the First Amendment either. That's because there's meaning behind the Establishment Clause, which is that the Congress will not empower one denomination over all others especially through a nation-wide church as was the case in England where one Church ruled over the whole country. State religion in America was fine though.

And you want to force us all to abide by your Christian morality structure because you claim it's the ideal that our government was founded upon?

No, I want the people this country was founded for not to lose sight of the historical significance their faith has had in making and governing this land. You might not realize it, but you're not the majority. In fact, you never have been and more than likely never will be. This country was founded on the Bible before anything else. Christians conquered, settled, and preserved this great land. For over four hundred years this land was pursued and settled for Christians, by Christians. The Bible was the original textbook in America. School sessions were held in Churches. Many founding fathers were sons of clergymen or were themselves preachers. The first colonists came to spread the kingdom of God and Christendom

Give me a break. The only reason Christianity had anything to do with the creation of our government was because nobody had any idea of a morality structure WITHOUT Christianity at the time. A flawed structure is better than no structure, I suppose.

The Founding Fathers disagree, I suppose-

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~John Adams
"We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" ~John Adams and John Hancock

"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus." ~Thomas Jefferson

" He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all." ~Samuel Adams

" God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."
"The excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." ~Benjamin Franklin

"Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson." ~John Jay

"It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves." ~Samuel Johnston

The idea to separate the government into three branches was, according to Madison, inspired by the Biblical passage of Isaiah 33:22. "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us."

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity… to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." ~James Madison

I could make a book with these quotes. This is a percentage of a portion of quotes from the Founders regarding religion's role in government and the founding of this republic. I could go on and on for pages. I don't think you can really argue that the Founders didn't have any idea of different systems, considering that well, they openly acknowledged those other systems and rejected them. Of all systems of all societies of all the world, modern or ancient, this system was the best.

You forgot the corporate lobby groups buying out politicians to make their own laws that can essentially render any passed referendum, which is the last real bastion of true Democracy in our government, completely useless. I agree with your proposal that we are a "federal republic," because we're sure as hell not a democracy anymore. Every election, we get to "choose" between socialist candidate and fascist candidate, both of whom often clearly have undiagnosed mental health issues. So much for the warnings against a two-party system and electing candidates who want to be in government.

Oh God. I don't know when exactly it took place, but some time in our history people started getting offended by lobbying. Lobbying is good. Lobbying is a part of freedom. Lobbying is protected in the First Amendment. Americans have the right to influence their representatives. That's the whole point of elections- to put in power those that represent our views and carry out our wishes. Lobbyists represent the First Amendment's clause defending the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It goes back to the Magna Carta. Representatives are called representatives for a reason. Somehow because someone has a lot of money and a successful business they're some corrupt bogeyman corrupting the system by wanting politicians that produce favorable business conditions.

I do agree that moreso than before we're facing socialists in moderate/liberal clothing. However I don't see why you'd make the distinction between socialists and Fascists. Fascists are socialists. The only difference between a Communist and Fascist is over the issue of sovereignty. Fascists are nationalists; Communists are internationalists. "Socialist" contains within it all those totalitarian ideologies and systems.

As for the luxury tax issue you discussed earlier, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree. I don't like a lot of government controls on the economy, but luxury taxes are one of the few that I've actually supported (though they do need to be lowered). I believe that all I said, however, was that if marijuana was legalized, it should be taxed, not that it should be taxed highly. Let's say we don't tax it at all; the benefits are still there. It could be a boon to the economy; the tobacco industry employs thousands of people in our country, perhaps millions. Who's to say that a marijuana industry isn't just what we need to get out of this poor economy?

I disagree with almost all taxes. Especially on "luxuries." I wish the Sixteen Amendment was repealed or at least altered to prohibit "progressive" taxation. The Fair Tax is something I've been reading into as well. I'm still making the case against using taxing a new product for government's sake. And it is for the government. You don't stimulate the economy by taxing anything, now do you? If anything, legalizing and taxing it would limit whatever potential it has. And you're using the tobacco industry as an example when the government is up their metaphorical back ends with taxes and regulation? All you'd be doing by legalizing pot is creating another cog in the wheel of government bureaucracy. There is no point, and the benefits you propose don't reasonably exist.

Embezzling money hurts the economy, which hurts people.

Ah, this is the argument against drugs. Except replace "economy" with "community" and people with "society."

Stealing hurts people.

No, stealing affects a person's well-being and deprives them of goods. But they're not actually harmed.

Drunk driving kills people.

Drunk driving *can* kill people. We still arrest and ticket drunk drivers who are pulled over. Killing while drunk driving or manslaughter is a different offense than drunk driving. The point is a law that prevents an undesirable situation and punishing bad and dangerous behavior.

Cheating on taxes hurts the government, so make of that what you will.

I think we all will.

Refusing the draft hurts the people doing the fighting, as taking a conscientious objector position will help save the lives of others who choose to fight.

I'd like to hear the logic behind this seemingly contradictory explanation. Either way you're not serving and someone is going to fill your spot. The only difference is the legality. Honestly a military functions better without drafts. The point is about service. Everyone has a duty to lay down their life for their country, to defend the land that defends their liberty. It's civic duty.

Prostitution objectifies women, but may help prevent rape, so that's hard to decide.

...what? Maybe the rape of the ones selling their bodies, but not clean women.

Lying under oath may hurt whoever is on the other side.

More like affect the outcome of a legal decision or ruling, which are an important factor in how our legal system effectively operates and rules on the laws of our land. A legal system can not work if those it is for is abused, corrupted, and made dysfunctional.

Slander and libel hurt peoples' images.

In other words, their feelings. Which is wrong to protect. The idea is that destroying one's image or viewed character ruins their livelihood, disrupts society and lives, and is damaging to a virtuous society.

Election rigging hurts an entire nation.

"Hurts a nation." Like "hurting" society?

Illegal immigration hurts the economy, which hurts people.

It "hurts" their well-being. In any case the point is defending national sovereignty, which is honestly an extension of society. The nation is formed through a social contract (constitution) between societies and people. When a nation's sovereignty is violated, its people and society are affected.

So only two or three of those don't hurt people.

None of them hurt people. They're nonetheless threats to liberty and civil society. The future of a strong society depends on a strong, moral, and virtuous people. And you don't get there by legalizing all kinds of evil behavior.

"Virtue" and "morality" are ambiguous;

Maybe for some people. I however am not a moral relativist. I believe something is either right or wrong, black or white with no gray in between.

homosexuality is something that is tolerable now, but was demonized for centuries, and pedophilia is something that's demonized now, but was tolerable for centuries. Upholding "morality" shouldn't mean upholding your version of morality, which is why we need to make laws that make our lives better, not ones that force one group to live by another group's rules. If we take into account peoples' rights, we can make assumptions about the previous "morally ambiguous" actions. Homosexuality doesn't invade anyone's rights (though rape does), so that should be legal. Pedophilia almost always invades a child's rights, so that should be illegal. Strangely enough, our government actually seems to have gotten it right there. Maybe they can do that more often.

Actually both are tolerated, just not accepted. I still think both are wrong, and changes in popular opinion aren't what guide my moral compass. My morality comes from the same source as the Founders of this land.

Anyway, Agent Cobalt, I don't think I'll touch the whole "Judeo-Christian principles" thing in this thread, since that's a point of contention that would take us far beyond the issue of drug laws. But can I just ask you this, out of curiosity - if your attitude towards drug regulation is that it should be free to be decided by individual state legislatures (correct me if I'm wrong, I just assumed this based on what you said), why do you support the legalization of hemp? Or are you just saying that if it was voted upon in your state/county, you would support it?

My point was actually, if I'm remembering the source post about legislature you mean (I've made a couple), I believe the point was that US drug policy is very complex, containing every level of government down to state and local government. As for hemp, it's not a drug. It's a cash crop that was banned alongside marijuana as a way to stop its spread and growth. The decision however harmed farmers, businesses, and so on. It was also dumb in retrospect because hemp doesn't have enough THC to get you high and the drug dealers don't want hemp because breading hemp with pot will yield weaker potency and devalue the drug. Nobody would plant the two near each other because the plant hemp would "infect" the drug stockpile so to speak. I vote for legalizing hemp if on the ballot. People make the case that pot will help the economy. I disagree. Hemp would help the economy. Hemp would challenge other businesses and provide competition in a free market. "Take that, paper industry! I don't have to worry about pages in my hemp Bibles turning yellow!"

 

[Mario The World Champion]

I'm kind of mixed on the whole legalize marijuana deal. I only see one big positive from that and that's regular people not being tossed in jail just because they got caught with some marijuana. That's one reason why jails are so overcrowded, normal people who have an honest living and they have some marijuana, get caught by the cops and are labeled drug users.

On the other side, I haven't read much on the positive effects of marijuana except it has been used for medical purposes. So, I guess that's okay, bit I need to read up on that. But the negative thing is that America is addicted to drugs and legalizing may open up lots more drug routes from Mexico and Drug Lords setting up shop, deeply embedding themselves in the U.S. The violence will most likely escalate big time and THAT is what I'm worried about.

 

[alucard_989]

As an artist I have my opinions on it myself. If you have ever drawn (assuming you draw well) while high, It is quite an experience...some of the best artwork i have ever done was while i was stoned.

 

[lx_theo]

I'm personally offended by Cobalt's need of religious morals. The government should not be basing any principles off of any religion. There's even laws made to separate church and state. Anything left really is just left there for its historical significance. The government's job has little to nothing to do with religion, and to try and justify with historical significance is ignorant to the modern day's perceived realities rather than 2 1/2 centuries' ago perceived reality. A government made for the people is a government to maintain the equality of rights, opportunities, services, and peace within the nation and to regulate the laws made to maintain those equalities. The ONLY place I could think of the religious moralities is to decide when those are satisfied, AFTER referencing things like the Bill of Rights. That makes any real practical use of it in the modern day null and void.

 

[Agent Cobalt]

I'm personally offended by Cobalt's need of religious morals.

I'm personally offended by secularist opposition to religion in the public square. It's alien, it's selfish, and it's historically false. Why? Why are people *so* outraged that someone in 2009 supports what every Founding Father supported in the 1780's? These snide remarks about Bibles being "magic books," non-sequiturs, pot shots at religion, and horrible comparisons to the Holocaust and Dark Ages really have no place here. And I say this, not because it weakens the debate, but because they're just sensationalist outbursts with no reason or thought behind them; they're just easy ways to try to diminish the other side without actually rebutting them.

The government should not be basing any principles off of any religion.

According to the people that made this government, it should.

There's even laws made to separate church and state.

"Separation of church and state" isn't real and doesn't exist. The term comes from a letter of Thomas Jefferson's where he's specifically talking about preventing government from interfering in the church, not the other way around. This is the problem that has arisen in our country; people make wild claims about laws that don't exist. What law? The Constitution? No laws have that phrase or meaning in it. To the contrary, I could provide you with dozens of laws and examples proving the opposite. Separation of church and state is a nice way of saying secularism and no religion, which is not what was intended for this nation.

Anything left really is just left there for its historical significance.

What does that even mean? Really? Here we have all of the Organic Laws of US code mentioning God and religion, the supreme law of land by the way, and you're dismissing it because it's inconvenient for you to acknowledge the origins of this country? Even when I was a non-believer I was never this hostile to religion because while I disagreed theologically, I still understood and respected what this nation was founded and built on. I didn't have to agree with Christianity or believe in God to respect that the great men that gave the world America were believers and wanted a strong Judeo-Christian nation. It's not really nice to try to remove the belief and moral structure of this country just because you disagree with what America built on.

The government's job has little to nothing to do with religion, and to try and justify with historical significance is ignorant to the modern day's perceived realities rather than 2 1/2 centuries' ago perceived reality.

So because this country was founded a long time ago, the principles it was founded on don't matter anymore? Great, so I guess we can go back to being a monarchy now since a republican government is just what those old guys from centuries ago envisioned for America; if a tiny minority want a monarchy, why be restricted to ideas a bunch of politicians from centuries ago had about how governments should work? Look, what you're advocating here is ignoring hundreds of years of precidence. With the thinking that being old makes something irrelevant to the present, why even follow the Constitution? If you're not even going to bother reading it in its historical context, why obey it? Then you're just changing the meaning of the words and making it say whatever you want, which isn't constitutionalist, but judicially activist. And once you apply these standards to our Constitution, you break a social contract amongst the people and states, thus violating the Constitution. Constitutions are contracts, and like any contract it needs to be read, interpreted, and applied according to its historical context and what it originally meant. And this goes for anything. When you remove God from America, you destroy America. I don't appreciate the idea that the Revolution's significance is less important today than it was years ago. If we lose our connection to our country's history, in what sense do we have a country?

A government made for the people is a government to maintain the equality of rights, opportunities, services, and peace within the nation and to regulate the laws made to maintain those equalities.

Which is why the Founders made a nation like ours rooted in the Bible. Again, I can keep posting what our Founders thought about just governments and societies lasting only when inspired by the religion of God.

The ONLY place I could think of the religious moralities is to decide when those are satisfied, AFTER referencing things like the Bill of Rights. That makes any real practical use of it in the modern day null and void.

...what?

 

[Yamikarasu]

Oh wow. When did God come into all of this? And I laugh at the idea that because a nation was founded on Christian beliefs means that it has to follow those same beliefs for the entire life span of a the nation. Society changes, and we are much less set in our religious beliefs than the vast majority of people were back then. The constitution is purposefully vague on a lot of things so that it can be interpreted as modern Americans see fit. We also have the power to amend the constitution so we can update it for the modern world. Btw, I don't think we were founded on Christian beliefs, but rather on the idea that people have inalienable rights and that the people should be protected from tyranny.

Why are people *so* outraged that someone in 2009 supports what every Founding Father supported in the 1780's?

Because we don't live in the 1780s. The Founding Fathers supported a lot of things than the majority of Americans no longer support. *coughslaverycough* I just find it funny that you think that everything the founding fathers believed in is absolute truth. I'm not saying it's anything against them. They were, after all, raised in a sexist, racist, an extremely pious society (relatively), and are products of their environment. Give them all the credit in the world for leading Americans through the Revolutionary War under nearly impossible odds, but they aren't the greatest thing since sliced bread.

In fact, the idea that we should do something or live a certain way just because someone said so is something the founding fathers vehemently opposed.

But that's beside the point. This is a debate on whether or not marijuana should be legalized. The last time I checked, no where in the constitution does it mention marijuana, so the argument that legalization is unconstitutional is silly. Again, if it did mention marijuana, we could amend the constitution. The constitution is not the final deciding factor on the law of the land, the will of the American people is the final law of the land, and if the American people wanted marijuana legalized, then it should be legalized. It does mention alcohol, but that amendment was repealed because prohibition led to gang violence and people were producing alcohol that couldn't be regulated for safety (i.e., moonshine that was practically pure alcohol)... oh wait. Isn't that exactly what is happening with the prohibition of marijuana?

 

[lx_theo]

I'm personally offended by secularist opposition to religion in the public square. It's alien, it's selfish, and it's historically false. Why? Why are people *so* outraged that someone in 2009 supports what every Founding Father supported in the 1780's? These snide remarks about Bibles being "magic books," non-sequiturs, pot shots at religion, and horrible comparisons to the Holocaust and Dark Ages really have no place here. And I say this, not because it weakens the debate, but because they're just sensationalist outbursts with no reason or thought behind them; they're just easy ways to try to diminish the other side without actually rebutting them.According to the people that made this government, it should. "Separation of church and state" isn't real and doesn't exist. The term comes from a letter of Thomas Jefferson's where he's specifically talking about preventing government from interfering in the church, not the other way around. This is the problem that has arisen in our country; people make wild claims about laws that don't exist. What law? The Constitution? No laws have that phrase or meaning in it. To the contrary, I could provide you with dozens of laws and examples proving the opposite. Separation of church and state is a nice way of saying secularism and no religion, which is not what was intended for this nation.What does that even mean? Really? Here we have all of the Organic Laws of US code mentioning God and religion, the supreme law of land by the way, and you're dismissing it because it's inconvenient for you to acknowledge the origins of this country? Even when I was a non-believer I was never this hostile to religion because while I disagreed theologically, I still understood and respected what this nation was founded and built on. I didn't have to agree with Christianity or believe in God to respect that the great men that gave the world America were believers and wanted a strong Judeo-Christian nation. It's not really nice to try to remove the belief and moral structure of this country just because you disagree with what America built on. So because this country was founded a long time ago, the principles it was founded on don't matter anymore? Great, so I guess we can go back to being a monarchy now since a republican government is just what those old guys from centuries ago envisioned for America; if a tiny minority want a monarchy, why be restricted to ideas a bunch of politicians from centuries ago had about how governments should work? Look, what you're advocating here is ignoring hundreds of years of precidence. With the thinking that being old makes something irrelevant to the present, why even follow the Constitution? If you're not even going to bother reading it in its historical context, why obey it? Then you're just changing the meaning of the words and making it say whatever you want, which isn't constitutionalist, but judicially activist. And once you apply these standards to our Constitution, you break a social contract amongst the people and states, thus violating the Constitution. Constitutions are contracts, and like any contract it needs to be read, interpreted, and applied according to its historical context and what it originally meant. And this goes for anything. When you remove God from America, you destroy America. I don't appreciate the idea that the Revolution's significance is less important today than it was years ago. If we lose our connection to our country's history, in what sense do we have a country? Which is why the Founders made a nation like ours rooted in the Bible. Again, I can keep posting what our Founders thought about just governments and societies lasting only when inspired by the religion of God. ...what?

I have to tell you, you're wrong. There's a bunch of quotes from the founding fathers of them bashing religion and its connections to the government. If you want to see some of them, then watch the section in the documentary, Religulous, that talks about it.

Separation of Church and State refers to Freedom of Religion allowing people to chose to freely chose their beliefs without the government supporting or endorsing any one religion. If you honestly think that Freedom of Religion is that people just don't get punished for not following the religion that the government is biased towards, then you are just intolerant of others' beliefs.

And do you really believe that all the scientific, social, and other advancements from then to the modern day should be ignored? And from how you approach all of this I'm sure you also believe there should be no gay marriage. This is an example of of how your moral structure theory is flawed when dealing with Freedom of Religion. Christian and a number of other religions view gay marriage as immoral because it destroys the sanctity of marriage. Here's what sanctity means:

anything regarded as sanctified or holy

Denying a person's right because you are favoring a religion is against the Constitution, more specifically, Freedom of religion. And one can't justify it by claiming it, in a sense, belongs to religion, because non-religious people can get married too. Now I know I don't know what you believe on the subject, but I made an educated guess so I could use it as an example.


To not legalize marijuana because its against Christian values is intolerant and illegal. And to try to justify that by saying the founding fathers would have supported it is simply absurd because it ignores the past two and a half centuries. Now other reasons, like the possible effect it would have on society's youth are valid in that sense.

 

[Agent Cobalt]

Oh wow. When did God come into all of this? And I laugh at the idea that because a nation was founded on Christian beliefs means that it has to follow those same beliefs for the entire life span of a the nation.

It doesn't. Again, as Samuel Johnston put it, Americans can give up their roots and faith. And if that unfortunately happens then a lot of things are going to change in this republic- important and fundamental things.

Society changes, and we are much less set in our religious beliefs than the vast majority of people were back then. The constitution is purposefully vague on a lot of things so that it can be interpreted as modern Americans see fit. We also have the power to amend the constitution so we can update it for the modern world.

You're leaving out a *lot* of history. I disagree about your assessment of religion in our country. Over 80% of the country believes in the God of the Bible. Every other religion is only a fraction of a percentage, so while the demographics have slightly changed since 1776, it's not that significant given immigration from foreign lands. Even factoring that in, there's a super majority of believers and non-believers make up an almost unnoticeable showing.

I also want to clear something up here- the Founding Fathers were conservatives. They opposed rapid social change. They saw the horrors of the French Revolution and didn't want that for this country. They believed that change takes time and society must be allowed to adapt on its own to new ideas, not have activists shove radically unwarranted policies down the throats of the people in the name of social progress. So when you mention that the Constitution can be amended, you're correct. What you've blatantly ignored is how they intentionally made it almost impossible to do. To amend the Constitution you need a majority of Congress and a super majority of the states to agree to and ratify changes to the Constitution. And considering the nature of government and politics, this would make it near impossible without almost full support from the people. So a tiny minority of secularists trying to overturn a Christian society doesn't fit at all with the concept of American government or our Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution knew very well that America would change over time and require additions to its Constitution to allow it to function properly in new ages, but they never wanted it to be easy to do or be done often.

Btw, I don't think we were founded on Christian beliefs, but rather on the idea that people have inalienable rights and that the people should be protected from tyranny.

That idea is based on Christian theology. It goes back to classical liberal philosophers. It's what makes our civilization unique. More often than not nations go through revolution and replace one set of rules with another. According to Judeo-Christian principles the Founders built this nation.

Because we don't live in the 1780s. The Founding Fathers supported a lot of things than the majority of Americans no longer support. *coughslaverycough* I just find it funny that you think that everything the founding fathers believed in is absolute truth. I'm not saying it's anything against them. They were, after all, raised in a sexist, racist, an extremely pious society (relatively), and are products of their environment. Give them all the credit for leading Americans through the Revolutionary War under nearly impossible odds, but they aren't the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Ah, that old argument. The only "sexist" I can think of was Jefferson, but he was more of a chauvinist. Regardless, most of the Founders did indeed recognize the importance of women and their role in society. This was especially true of John Adams who relied heavily on his Wife's love and support during the Revolution. He looked to her for guidance, wisdom. I don't think it's fair to claim the Founders were in a sexist society. Women at the time were just had a different place in society. They weren't seen as not being human. More often than not, the Founders blamed the evils and injustices of society on men.

And Pious? The Founders were actually more religious than the general population. So make of that what you will, but I believe it speaks volumes about where the ideas of the Founders came from and what kind of men they were; if anything they were not mere products of their surroundings, but of the Enlightenment. They were intellectuals and philosophers. They still retained their religiosity and came to the conclusion of the Bible, that "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD."

As for slavery, you'll be hard pressed to find many actively pro-slavery Founders. The Founders can generally be summed up into these categories-
Those that at one point had no opinion on slavery but chose moderate stances on it. These were never "pro-slavery" but simply not focused on the topic of abolition.
Those that saw slavery's existence as a necessary evil which had been imported here in colonial times. This made economies dependent on it, especially southward, and immediately removing it would destroy the country.
Those that saw slavery as wrong but avoided abolitionism so as not to destroy the Union. This was especially true when needing the South to join the Union's efforts against the British.
Those that had slaves but preached its immorality. Call it hypocritical if you want, but there you go.
Those that preached that slavery was immoral and unjust, but never got around to doing anything about it.
And this last group, those that were open critics of slavery and openly supported and moved the abolitionist movement in America, was fairly significant.
So to say that they "believed" in slavery is hogwash. Moreso than not, the Founders abhorred slavery and saw it not only as immoral and unjust, but cruel and bigoted. You should give them more credit than you do. The Founders weren't a bunch of bigoted, rich, white guys trying to keep people down. The Founders themselves were very divided themselves about included slavery in the Declaration as a crime against humanity, and of freeing the slavery from the nation's birth. And this wasn't because they didn't agree slavery was bad, they did. It was because they had an entire country and its people's futures to consider. And they were right- slavery almost destroyed the Union and lead to a civil war, the bloodiest war in our history. They had foresight. Regardless, many Founders actually helped found the abolitionist movement in America. Also, the abolitionist movement too was based in Christian theology and wasn't something non-Christian nations even contemplated or cared to consider. The Bible ushered in the idea that no man has the right to rule another man without his consent. The Bible was applied to every aspect of life in our society, and it's what's given us freedom and independence, the Organic Laws, the abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage, free markets, public education, and so on.

But that's beside the point. This is a debate on whether or not marijuana should be legalized. The last time I checked, no where in the constitution does it mention marijuana. It does mention alcohol, and that was repealed because prohibition led to gang violence and people producing alcohol that couldn't be regulated for safety (i.e., moonshine that was practically pure alcohol)... oh wait. Isn't that exactly what is happening with the prohibition of marijuana?

I've already addressed this in a previous post. There's no sense in me repeating myself.

I have to tell you, you're wrong. There's a bunch of quotes from the founding fathers of them bashing religion and its connections to the government. If you want to see some of them, then watch the section in the documentary, Religulous, that talks about it.

And barring any quotes from Thomas Paine, they're almost all assuredly taken out of context. Again, for every quote that's morally ambiguous, anti-religion, secularist, or anti-clerical, I can supply at least ten to the contrary right off the bat. I'll restate this again- Not supporting a national church such as was in England, is not the same as supporting secularism. And supporting Christianity as the nation's religious affiliation is not the same as theocracy. So as for me being wrong, I hate to toot my own horn but, I'm quite right. <=P

Separation of Church and State refers to Freedom of Religion allowing people to chose to freely chose their beliefs without the government supporting or endorsing any one religion. If you honestly think that Freedom of Religion is that people just don't get punished for not following the religion that the government is biased towards, then you are just intolerant of others' beliefs.

The states had their own established churches as did the colonies before them. It wasn't an issue with those that wrote the Constitution of First Amendment because they actually understood what it was about. The point was preventing one denomination gaining control of the whole country or establishing a national church that overpowered the different sects in the states and overriding the people's denominations. Why? Because this had been going on in Europe for some time. So there's a history behind this nobody seems to mention, just like with the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Again, separation of church and state is non-existent. Your definition of it is different than what the last guy has said, and the guy before him. It's got no real meaning. It's a term taken from a letter of Thomas Jefferson where he mentions "a wall of separation" between the government and churches. It's been taken out of context and warped into something completely different that Jefferson would never support. And thanks for the "intolerant" remark. I can always tell when substance and facts are winning when someone tosses around that old gem to describe whatever they don't agree with.

And do you really believe that all the scientific, social, and other advancements from then to the modern day should be ignored?

...no? If anything, most of those were the result of or inspired by Christianity.

And from how you approach all of this I'm sure you also believe there should be no gay marriage.

Of course not.

This is an example of of how your moral structure theory is flawed when dealing with Freedom of Religion. Christian and a number of other religions view gay marriage as immoral because it destroys the sanctity of marriage.

It's actually a few other things than that, but go on.

Here's what sanctity means:
Denying a person's right because you are favoring a religion is against the Constitution, more specifically, Freedom of religion. And one can't justify it by claiming it, in a sense, belongs to religion, because non-religious people can get married too. Now I know I don't know what you believe on the subject, but I made an educated guess so I could use it as an example.

That's... not what it means at all, actually. I don't even know where to begin here. I start by challenging the idea that gay marriage is a "right" to begin with. I don't think it is, most Americans don't think it is, not that I'm using majority rule here as the basis of an argument but it's worth mentioning. Never before has it been considered a "right." This idea arose in the late Twentieth Century as a result of protests by special rights advocates, especially homosexual and free love activists. This is the same era and legacy of the other protesters of the day- the anti-war college students, the Hispanic "Chicano" movement, the environmentalist global cooling crowd, and the anti-american/Communist proxies flooding the streets. All of which now have a prominent and sadly permanent presence in American politics. I'm not even arguing against or for gay marriage with this post. I'm correcting the misconception that opposing *special* rights for a minority of people is violating anyone's actual rights.

To not legalize marijuana because its against Christian values is intolerant and illegal. And to try to justify that by saying the founding fathers would have supported it is simply absurd because it ignores the past two and a half centuries. Now other reasons, like the possible effect it would have on society's youth are valid in that sense.

Again, I'd like a reasonable explanation as to how it's illegal. It is, after all, law. It's like saying the Constitution is illegal. Well, explain yourself. Otherwise it's another example of what I critiqued earlier about people calling things illegal, unconstitutional, or whatever without actually being able to substantiate it.

 

[lx_theo]

It doesn't. Again, as Samuel Johnston put it, Americans can give up their roots and faith. And if that unfortunately happens then a lot of things are going to change in this republic- important and fundamental things.

Like what?

You're leaving out a *lot* of history. I disagree about your assessment of religion in our country. Over 80% of the country believes in the God of the Bible. Every other religion is only a fraction of a percentage, so while the demographics have slightly changed since 1776, it's not that significant given immigration from foreign lands. Even factoring that in, there's a super majority of believers and non-believers make up an almost unnoticeable showing.

I also want to clear something up here- the Founding Fathers were conservatives. They opposed rapid social change. They saw the horrors of the French Revolution and didn't want that for this country. They believed that change takes time and society must be allowed to adapt on its own to new ideas, not have activists shove radically unwarranted policies down the throats of the people in the name of social progress. So when you mention that the Constitution can be amended, you're correct. What you've blatantly ignored is how they intentionally made it almost impossible to do. To amend the Constitution you need a majority of Congress and a super majority of the states to agree to and ratify changes to the Constitution. And considering the nature of government and politics, this would make it near impossible without almost full support from the people. So a tiny minority of secularists trying to overturn a Christian society doesn't fit at all with the concept of American government or our Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution knew very well that America would change over time and require additions to its Constitution to allow it to function properly in new ages, but they never wanted it to be easy to do or be done often.

A need to amend it would only be there if was something in it that would make it illegal, which you have yet to prove in any way, shape or form.

That idea is based on Christian theology. It goes back to classical liberal philosophers. It's what makes our civilization unique. More often than not nations go through revolution and replace one set of rules with another. According to Judeo-Christian principles the Founders built this nation.

Your point? Almost the entirety of America was Christian at that time so of course it was based on that. And you mentioned 80% are Christian earlier, its actually about 76%, and is going down every year. In fact, 14% are non-religious. And that number is increasing.

Ah, that old argument. The only "sexist" I can think of was Jefferson, but he was more of a chauvinist. Regardless, most of the Founders did indeed recognize the importance of women and their role in society. This was especially true of John Adams who relied heavily on his Wife's love and support during the Revolution. He looked to her for guidance, wisdom. I don't think it's fair to claim the Founders were in a sexist society. Women at the time were just had a different place in society. They weren't seen as not being human. More often than not, the Founders blamed the evils and injustices of society on men.

And Pious? The Founders were actually more religious than the general population. So make of that what you will, but I believe it speaks volumes about where the ideas of the Founders came from and what kind of men they were; if anything they were not mere products of their surroundings, but of the Enlightenment. They were intellectuals and philosophers. They still retained their religiosity and came to the conclusion of the Bible, that "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD."

As for slavery, you'll be hard pressed to find many actively pro-slavery Founders. The Founders can generally be summed up into these categories-
Those that at one point had no opinion on slavery but chose moderate stances on it. These were never "pro-slavery" but simply not focused on the topic of abolition.
Those that saw slavery's existence as a necessary evil which had been imported here in colonial times. This made economies dependent on it, especially southward, and immediately removing it would destroy the country.
Those that saw slavery as wrong but avoided abolitionism so as not to destroy the Union. This was especially true when needing the South to join the Union's efforts against the British.
Those that had slaves but preached its immorality. Call it hypocritical if you want, but there you go.
Those that preached that slavery was immoral and unjust, but never got around to doing anything about it.
And this last group, those that were open critics of slavery and openly supported and moved the abolitionist movement in America, was fairly significant.
So to say that they "believed" in slavery is hogwash. Moreso than not, the Founders abhorred slavery and saw it not only as immoral and unjust, but cruel and bigoted. You should give them more credit than you do. The Founders weren't a bunch of bigoted, rich, white guys trying to keep people down. The Founders themselves were very divided themselves about included slavery in the Declaration as a crime against humanity, and of freeing the slavery from the nation's birth. And this wasn't because they didn't agree slavery was bad, they did. It was because they had an entire country and its people's futures to consider. And they were right- slavery almost destroyed the Union and lead to a civil war, the bloodiest war in our history. They had foresight. Regardless, many Founders actually helped found the abolitionist movement in America. Also, the abolitionist movement too was based in Christian theology and wasn't something non-Christian nations even contemplated or cared to consider. The Bible ushered in the idea that no man has the right to rule another man without his consent. The Bible was applied to every aspect of life in our society, and it's what's given us freedom and independence, the Organic Laws, the abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage, free markets, public education, and so on.

Have you ever noticed many Christian values and yada yada are really just common sense in this day and age? Religion was needed for moral guidance back way when and society advances to make those simply common sense.

And slavery was not needed since when it was repelled it just gave way to more and more of the good old hate to african americans created by Christain principles. In fact, they became cheap labor who could be paid less than it had cost to feed and provide shelter for them. You do know we were one of the last of the countries on the forefront of societal and technological development to actually ban slavery?

I've already addressed this in a previous post. There's no sense in me repeating myself.

You really should. Why? Because you write these big blocks of text not everyone has read and memorized. And you and no one else here is any better than anyone else to expect to be taken comepletely serious and without resentment because you are too lazy to simply explain it again or even just quote what you said before.

And barring any quotes from Thomas Paine, they're almost all assuredly taken out of context. Again, for every quote that's morally ambiguous, anti-religion, secularist, or anti-clerical, I can supply at least ten to the contrary right off the bat. I'll restate this again- Not supporting a national church such as was in England, is not the same as supporting secularism. And supporting Christianity as the nation's religious affiliation is not the same as theocracy. So as for me being wrong, I hate to toot my own horn but, I'm quite right. <=P

Prove there not taken out of context since you just seem to be assuming they are on a bias, or prove all of yours are not.

The states had their own established churches as did the colonies before them. It wasn't an issue with those that wrote the Constitution of First Amendment because they actually understood what it was about. The point was preventing one denomination gaining control of the whole country or establishing a national church that overpowered the different sects in the states and overriding the people's denominations. Why? Because this had been going on in Europe for some time. So there's a history behind this nobody seems to mention, just like with the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Again, separation of church and state is non-existent. Your definition of it is different than what the last guy has said, and the guy before him. It's got no real meaning. It's a term taken from a letter of Thomas Jefferson where he mentions "a wall of separation" between the government and churches. It's been taken out of context and warped into something completely different that Jefferson would never support. And thanks for the "intolerant" remark. I can always tell when substance and facts are winning when someone tosses around that old gem to describe whatever they don't agree with.

Can you explain why public schools have problems with having religious references then?

...no? If anything, most of those were the result of or inspired by Christianity.

Wow... just wow. Not to knock out off your high horse, but that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. So I'll go with this, prove it.

Of course not.

It's actually a few other things than that, but go on.


That's... not what it means at all, actually. I don't even know where to begin here. I guess I'll start by stating that no, sanctity means something totally different. Words have definitions and it doesn't help anything to muddy the waters of word meanings. I'll continue by challenging the idea that gay marriage is a "right" to begin with. I don't think it is, most Americans don't think it is, not that I'm using majority rule here as the basis of an argument but it's worth mentioning. Never before has it been considered a "right." This idea arose in the late Twentieth Century as a result of protests by special rights advocates, especially homosexual and free love activists. This is the same era and legacy of the other protesters of the day- the anti-war college students, the Hispanic "Chicano" movement, the environmentalist global cooling crowd, and the anti-american/Communist proxies flooding the streets. All of which now have a prominent and sadly permanent presence in American politics. I'm not even arguing against or for gay marriage with this post. I'm correcting the misconception that opposing *special* rights for a minority of people isn't violating anyone's actual rights.

A few really wrong things with what you said.

1. It is what it means, and I suggest you don't argue with the dictionary.
2. How is all non-gay people a minority? Its excluding the minority from something they want.
3. Its a right because not allowing them the same opportunities as the majority of the country, which is a very mild form of oppression. And most of those groups that you mentioned weren't lobbying for their rights or benefits, making them irrelevant.

Again, I'd like a reasonable explanation as to how it's illegal. It is, after all, law. It's like saying the Constitution is illegal. Well, explain yourself. Otherwise it's another example of what I critiqued earlier about people calling things illegal, unconstitutional, or whatever without actually being able to substantiate it.

Oh come on. You just read my explanation and ignored most of my points, that paragraph was more of a conclusion to the rest of it...

 

[Agent Cobalt]

Like what?

Darn near everything. The concept of freedom and liberty. The concept of sovereignty. The concept of the social contract. Moral order. Civic virtue. Civil liberty. Republican government. Everything this nation was founded on.

A need to amend it would only be there if was something in it that would make it illegal, which you have yet to prove in any way, shape or form.

...what? Please restate that.

Your point? Almost the entirety of America was Christian at that time so of course it was based on that. And you mentioned 80% are Christian earlier, its actually about 76%, and is going down every year. In fact, 14% are non-religious. And that number is increasing.

I said believed in the God of the Bible. Thus "Judeo-Christian." And the shift in demographics is only the result, as I've states, of immigration policies. The American people have not gotten less religious. We're taking in more people from around the world. Places secularism is prominent sadly. That's partly why our immigration system stinks- the lack of proper assimilation.

Have you ever noticed many Christian values and yada yada are really just common sense in this day and age? Religion was needed for moral guidance back way when and society advances to make those simply common sense.

They're only common sense because Christianity took the teachings of Judaism and the Bible and universalized them. Slowly but surely Christianity rose to pominence in Europe and the Middle East and expanded to become the dominant religion on Earth. Yet the great non-Christian societies like Athens didn't value human life. These values, your "common sense," was never common in societies without or not inspired by the Bible. Again, take God out of the equation and you'd be living in a society where it's common sense to abandon a child on a hill hoping to find it dead the next morning. Heck, look at the godless societies today and how much suffering they're caused. The common sense of Christianity hasn't been able to reach the huddled masses of totalitarian regimes.

And slavery was not needed

I didn't say it way. I said some Founders saw it that way and were hesitant to remove it outright for fear of economic collapse of the lower unindustrialized states.

since when it was repelled it just gave way to more and more of the good old hate to african americans created by Christain principles.

Another pot shot at Christianity with no subsense to back it up.

In fact, they became cheap labor who could be paid less than it had cost to feed and provide shelter for them.

I'm well aware of the Reconstruction Era and of the free labor policy.

You do know we were one of the last of the countries on the forefront of societal and technological development to actually ban slavery?

I didn't say were weren't. What you're not mentioning is that most other countries were Christian as well. The Americas, Europe, and so on were within the realm of what we call "Christendom." Abolitionism had its own movement in America, but it existed in many other countries of Christian faith.

You really should. Why? Because you write these big blocks of text not everyone has read and memorized. And you and no one else here is any better than anyone else to expect to be taken comepletely serious and without resentment because you are too lazy to simply explain it again or even just quote what you said before.

Then go back and read my posts. It's not that hard. I'm not asking you to write a term paper or supply a bibliography here. Just know what you're arguing against. And as for me writing blocks, well, I actually like to use detail and facts to substantiate what I post, otherwise there's no point in posting. And I don't expect you to think the internet is "serious business" but if you're going to attempt rebutting me then the best option is researching. I do it. Otherwise it's unnecessarily repetitive.

 

[Mario The World Champion]

Since when did this thread get to from talking about the pros and cons about legalizing marijuana to a full blown discussion about religion beliefs? This happens every time somebody said something about religion and everything goes flying off the handle.

I'm sorry if I'm not adding anything to the:marijuana being legal or not discussion, but we all need to get back to the topic at hand. I know I must sound like a mini-mod, but just going back and forth about a subject that have people sticking to their guns will only result in a flame war.

Honestly, I don't believe in God. So does that make me a bad person because I don't believe in the faith that our founding fathers followed when they discovered America?

 

[lx_theo]

Since when did this thread get to from talking about the pros and cons about legalizing marijuana to a full blown discussion about religion beliefs? This happens every time somebody said something about religion and everything goes flying off the handle.

I'm sorry if I'm not adding anything to the:marijuana being legal or not discussion, but we all need to get back to the topic at hand. I know I must sound like a mini-mod, but just going back and forth about a subject that have people sticking to their guns will only result in a flame war.

Honestly, I don't believe in God. So does that make me a bad person because I don't believe in the faith that our founding fathers followed when they discovered America?

Well it relates to the topic as it is whether or not the principles of Christianity have any place in the government, in the sense of whether they become an important factor in whether or not to legalize marijuana or not.