Darkwing Duck's page

We need NASA to provide us with advances that make new things possible.

You can successfully defend the claim that NASA has created new stuff that is used outside of the space industry.

But, what you have NOT done is proven that NASA is -required- in order to make new stuff that is used outside of the space industry or, even, that it is the -best- way to make new stuff that is used outside of the space industry.

Speaking of libertarianism, I think of Ayn Rand. When you -read- her book, Atlas Shrugged, you find that the people John Galt was gathering were people whose work helped their fellow man. It was only when the government made it impossible for them to keep helping their fellow man that they walked away.

Libertarians believe that you can't outsource compassion for others. Libertarians believe that we all have a -personal- obligation to help those around us and Libertarians take this obligation very seriously.

Other political parties want you to believe that all you have to do is send tax money off to their politicians' cronies money pits of a joke charity. The result? Two research studies found that when help is given privately, 70% or more of each charitable dollar gets to a worthy recipient. But only 30% of each tax welfare dollar reaches the needy http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf

That's the libertarian response - that aid will be delivered more effectively and efficiently to those who need it. Libertarianism is the only political platform that truly embraces charity and helping the needy. Rather than seeing it as just a means to an end - gaining votes and money.

Scott, do you want government to stop spending money (on anything that doesn't help you)? Do you want government out of your private life (but have no problem with the government meddling in other's lives)?

I'm betting you don't think that statement describes you. I'm betting that meatrace doesn't think it describes him either.

The people whom it does describe are always some indescribable "other" and, wouldn't you know it? That "other" is the majority.

That's the problem. We can't work towards anything constructive as long as we're paranoid of everyone else.

Yes, there are people who fit that description. But, the majority? I see no evidence of that. What I see is a bunch of voters acting paranoid that "the majority" fits that description.

My point was simply that Prop 8 benefited from Democratic voters who "broke ranks" to oppose gay marriage, and that this is an example of the sort of person you don't want to flip support on you if you can avoid it.

And my point is that this is the sort of thing we can expect from Obama. He will fight against equality until he has no choice. He will blame his fight against equality on some branch of Democrats whom he'd lose support from. Any support he does have for equality is only because it is politically expedient to provide such support.

Basing one's political actions on what is most politically expedient is one of the many ways that he and Romney are the same.

Don't face away from the door when riding the elevator

Never carry on a conversation with someone, no matter how well you know them, when they are on a public toilet.

Also, comparing modern Christianities potential to go nuts and slaughter people to modern Islam's potential is a bit of a false equivalency.

Its really not.

An adequate comparison can be made if economy is kept constant. For example, you can compare Muslims in Turkey to Christians in the United States. Or, you can compare Muslims in Afghanistan to Christians in Uganda.

Darkwing Duck wrote:

The fact is that his administration is fighting to have the right to send people to jail without trial.

Except that they're not, since that was removed from the NDAA this year, something I've already pointed out in this thread.

I didn't say that he's winning the fight. Fortunately, the courts have stopped him. I said that he's fighting for the right to send people to jail without trial. And he's certainly doing that. Right now, he's requested and received an injunction against the court's ruling.

Fact is, if Obama had fought as hard for the repeal of DADT as he has for the right to throw people in prison without trial, DADT would have been repealed years earlier than it was.

There are multiple problems with the current rules that I'd like to see fixed.

For example, if you want to play a stealthy type of character and no one else does, you are pretty much never going to have the chance to use stealth. Because no one else is going to want to run an adventure or even an encounter using a skill that they don't have.
A character with stealth should be able to help other characters with their stealth roll.

There are a lot of feats that shouldn't exist. "Bounding Hammer"? These kinds of feats shouldn't exist. Instead, weapons should automatically be able to do these things in the hands of a character with martial weapon proficiency.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency needs to be designed to be mathematically worthwhile to take. Also, it shouldn't be tied to a particular weapon. It should be regional. After all, in Hyborea everyone knows how to handle a Bastard Sword.

The list goes on and on.

What we don't need is a radical change like we saw between 3.5 and 4.0 or 4.0 and 5.0. The rules should be wide ranging but subtle enough that the modules and bestiaries don't need rewritten.

As a non-american(I'm brazillian) I support Obama.

From the outside looking in, he seems smart, well spoken, reasonably competent and not very corrupt.
Romney, on the other hand, seems a heartbeat away from going full Charlie Sheen loco in the coco. He looks like he's itching to play russian roulette with nukes while ranting about tiger blood.
If you guys hadn't already elected George W 'can he even tie his own shoes?' Bush, not once but twice, we, as in, the rest of the world, would think you guys were just joking...

Obama is just a better speaker.

The fact is that his administration is fighting to have the right to send people to jail without trial. He has, also, pursued legal action against whistleblowers more often than any previous President.

There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of Obama - things that have nothing to do with where he was born or what race he is.

In 2010 Obama's lawyers fought against repealing DADT. They even brought an injunction against repealing DADT once it was ruled unconstitutional.

The credit for the repeal of DADT belongs to Patrick Murphy whose efforts put Obama in a position where Obama could no longer fight against the repeal of DADT without suffering significant political embarrassment.

As for DOMA, Obama wants to pull a Bush (i.e. act stupid) on the issue. He claims that his beliefs are in 'transition'. But, what direction are they transitioning? He supported gay marriage earlier in his life. Now, he's not sure? What's that vector?

As for Romney and abortion, I can point to multiple video clips where he says that he supports a woman's right to choose. The fact is that, as with most things, he doesn't actually stand for either position. Which is another way that he's similar to Obama - he gives a mixed message on abortion. For example, Romney care in Massachusetts covers abortion. Obamacare does not. In fact, the National Catholic Reporter (which, I assume, is as pro-life as newspapers come) rates Obama more pro-life than Romney is.

I don't get the whole Obama vs. Romney thing.

Romney is just "Obama version 2".

Look at everything that Obama has done over the past four years. Has Romney given any indication that he'd go in a different direction? We all know about Romneycare. Obama fought against gay rights in every way that he could over the past four years. Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter act. Romney supports abortion. Romney is silent on the fact that the Obama administration is trying to be able to send Americans to prison without trial.

The two leading candidates are just smoke and mirrors to keep the average American distracted.

The following words are from the Reverend Otis Moss, Senior Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois concerning President Obama’s recent public endorsement of Gay Marriage.

My Brother:

Tell your brethren who are part of your ministerial coalition to “live their faith and not legislate their faith” for the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of all. We must learn to be more than a one-issue community and seek the beloved community where we may not all agree, but we all recognize the fingerprint of the Divine upon all of humanity.

There is no doubt people who are same-gender-loving occupy prominent places in the body of Christ. For the clergy to hide from true dialogue with quick dismissive claims devised from poor biblical scholarship is as sinful as unthoughtful acceptance of a theological position. When we make biblical claims without sound interpretation we run the risk of adopting a doctrinal position of deep conviction but devoid of love. Deep faith may resonate in our position, but it is the ethic of love that forces us to prayerfully reexamine our position.

The question I believe we should pose to our congregations is, “Should all Americans have the same civil rights?” This is a radically different question than the one you raised with the ministers, “Does the church have the right to perform or not perform certain religious rites.”

There is difference between rights and rites. We should never misconstrue rights designed to protect diverse individuals in a pluralistic society versus religious rites designed by faith communities to communicate a theological or doctrinal perspective. These two questions are answered in two fundamentally different arenas. One is answered in the arena of civic debate where the Constitution is the document of authority. The other is answered in the realm of ecclesiastical councils where theology, conscience and biblical mandates are the guiding ethos. I do not believe ecclesiastical councils are equipped to shape civic legislation nor are civic representatives equipped to shape religious rituals and doctrine.

The institution of marriage is not under attack as a result of the President’s words. Marriage was under attack years ago by men who viewed women as property and children as trophies of sexual prowess. Marriage is under attack by low wages, high incarceration, unfair tax policy, unemployment, and lack of education. Marriage is under attack by clergy who proclaim monogamy yet think nothing of stepping outside the bonds of marriage to have multiple affairs with “preaching groupies.” Same-gender couples did not cause the high divorce rate, but our adolescent views of relationships and our inability as a community to come to grips with the ethic of love and commitment did. We still confuse sex with love and romance with commitment.

My father, who is a veteran of the civil rights movement and retired pastor, eloquently stated the critical nature of this election when speaking to ministers this past week who claim they will pull support from the President as a result of his position. He stated, “Our Ancestors prayed for 389 years to place a person of color in the White House. They led over 200 slave revolts, fought in 11 wars, one being a civil war where over 600,000 people died. Our mothers fought and were killed for women’s suffrage, our grandparents were lynched for the civil rights bill of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965…my father never had the opportunity to vote and I believe it is my sacred duty to pull the lever for every member of my family who was denied the right to vote. I will not allow narrow-minded ministers or regressive politicians the satisfaction of keeping me from my sacred right to vote to shape the future for my grandchildren.”

“The institution of marriage is not under attack as a result of the President’s words.”

Gay and lesbian citizens did not cause the economic crash, foreclosures, and attack upon health care. Poor under funded schools were not created because people desire equal protection under the law. We have much work to do as a community, and to claim the President of the United States must hold your theological position is absurd. He is President of the United States of America not the President of the Baptist convention or Bishop of the Sanctified or Holiness Church. He is called to protect the rights of Jew and Gentile, male and female, young and old, Gay and straight, black and white, Atheist and Agnostic. It should be noted the President offered no legislation, or executive order, or present an argument before the Supreme Court. He simply stated his personal conviction.

If we dare steal away from the noise of this debate, we will realize as a church we are called to “Do justice, live mercy and walk humbly with God.” Gay people have never been the enemy; and when we use rhetoric to suggest they are the source of our problems we lie on God and cause tears to flow from the eyes of Christ.

I am not asking you to change your position, but I am stating we must stay in dialogue and not allow our own personal emotional prejudices or doctrines to prevent us from seeing the possibilities of a beloved community.

November is fast approaching, and the spirits of Ella Baker, Septima Clarke, Fannie Lou Hammer, Rosa Parks, A. Phillip Randolph, James Orange, Medgar Evers and Martin Luther, King Jr. stand in the balcony of heaven raising the question, “Will you do justice, live mercy and walk humbly with our God?”

Emmitt Till and the four little girls who were assassinated in Alabama during worship did not die for a Sunday sermonic sound bite to show disdain for one group of God’s people. They were killed by an evil act enacted by men who believed in doctrine over love. We serve in ministry this day because of a man who believed in love over doctrine and died on a hill called Calvary in a dusty Palestinian community 2,000 years ago. Do not let the rhetoric of this debate keep you from the polls, my friend.

Asking you to imagine a beloved community, your brother and friend,

Otis Moss, III
, Senior Pastor 
Trinity UCC

To explain further what I said was:

Dogbladewarrior wrote:

I’m not denying it’s true(there are a lot of people in the world with a lot of different beliefs) but I have known a lot of gay men and as far as I know none of them have believed this.

It was more of a “Wait, you are telling me unicorns are real?” with a skeptical look on my face and Darkwing was like “Bam! Proof of unicorns!”

Oh, alright then.

Proof of seriously demented unicorns, but still..unicorns.

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I disagree. I acknowledge that, in some cases, they are control freaks in as much as they wish to take the freedom of choice away from people. But, not all of them wish to do that. Some of them simply say "this is what -we- do, but you're free to not be a member of our church". Discipline is not a dirty word. Self-Control is not a dirty word. A choice to live one's life according to certain principles is a good thing. Without it, there's really no reason at all not to do whatever we want - mugging people, stealing, gluttony, etc. - the result being a society that falls apart. I'm NOT claiming that those principles have to be Christian - just to make that clarification.

So you're okay with the doctrine that gay couples can live together, just as long as they don't have sex? It's all about discipline and self-control, right?

I believe in supporting a person's right to live their life however they want to live it and to not be denigrated for it - even if they choose to live their lives in ways that I personally won't - as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

If they choose to hold off until they are in a committed relationship before having sex, then that's their choice and I won't denigrate them for it. If they are gay and want to hold off until marriage, my church performs gay marriages, so when they are ready, we're ready.

I don't support people who wish to take rights away from others. I'm all for people choosing to live their lives however they want to (as long as they don't hurt anyone). I'm not okay with anyone deciding how some other adult is going to live their life. So, am I okay with the doctrine that gay couples can live together as long as they don't have sex? As long as such a policy doesn't become law and as long as membership in such an organization is voluntary, sure. As Voltaire said, "I'll fight to the death for your right to be wrong". I put such organizations on the level of snake handlers. I'm not going to be handling any snakes, but if that's your thing, then go for it. That is, after all, what it means to embrace freedom.

Part of freedom is free speech. As such, I'll never try to take away someone's right to live how they want to (as long as they don't hurt anyone), but I will tell them what I think (and I'll try to do so in a respectful manner). I will debate with them. But, I won't try to take away their right to live how they want to.

However, if they do try to take away someone else's rights or if they do engage in activity which harms someone, then my effort to converse with them in a respectful manner is gone and the claws come out.

Aretas, the Bible disagrees with you.

Israel has anti-miscegenation laws on the books, as well as vigilante groups. Last I heard, Israel has a few jewish people.

Anti-miscegenation wasn't just a short-lived thing in this country. It was on the law books for over 100 years (Alabama adopted one in 1852). I'm sure you'd agree we are a Christian nation.

So, it took me 1 minute to find one Jewish and one Christian culture that each opposed miscegenation. If you'd like, I can probably find some more examples for you over the past 2000 years. It was not a moral aberration that only briefly appeared during the 1950's.

We're a Christian nation only in the sense that most people claim to be Christian. Legally, we're not.

Heya David.

I keep responding to your post, but the quote levels get all messed up. I'm going to read "Robert J. Sawher's Neanderthal Parallax Trilogy," regardless.

I'm not sure humans need to invoke Science Fiction to imagine

Someone wrote:

a species that only does hetero sex for reproduction, maybe only in an estrus period, but uses homosexual activity for pleasure and social bonding.

I'm looking at Ancient Greece here, reading that.

I think the Ancient Greeks had a lot sex for pleasure and bonding. I think it happened between men, men and women, women and women.

I also think they realized that sex sometimes led to little Greeks.

So there's that, too :D

-- Andy

I was thinking of the Spartans.

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Your voodoo psychology is not accepted by the American Psychological Association.

/panics

-.-*

The problem with psychology is that its basically complete guesswork. What affects one person one way affects another person another way. What drove Manson to be a serial killer may have had no effect on somebody else. When psychology actually starts being more scientific, I'll start giving a s*~@ what the APA thinks.

Every complex body of knowledge involves some degree of unpredictability. If I flip a coin, I don't know which side it'll land on. I do know, however, that it won't turn into a bird.

Your assertion that sexual orientation is changeable is equivalent to asserting that a coin will turn into a bird. There's evidence that a coin can land heads up or heads down. There's no evidence that reparative therapy works.

I think, end of the day, we choose our sexual orientations. That is, we can either agree with and conform to what our biology/social factors say we are, or we can 'rise above it' and, through strength of will, we can overcome those kinds of things.

Your voodoo psychology is not accepted by the American Psychological Association.

Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or “repair” homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of “cures” are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, “reparative” therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

The National Association of Social Workers says

No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful.16 NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so.17 NASW reaffirms its stance against reparative therapies and treatments designed to change sexual orientation or to refer practitioners or programs that claim to do so.

And the list of so-called 'reparative therapy' leadership who've been found to still be gay is nearly as long as the list of 'reparative therapy' leadership in general - which gives the indication that for those who have not been found to still be gay, its just a matter of time before they are.

The Drunken Dragon, there is no psychological treatment that removes an orientation.

Aversion therapy has been attempted and fails. Trying to change an orientation through therapy creates problems such as depression (even suicide).

Stringburka, when I was talking about pedophiles, I was talking about people (men or women) who acted, in some way, in that direction.

My frequent changes in sexual orientation and gender basically destroyed any sense of identity I may've had. I find it difficult to remember how I used to perceive things. These changes have warped my perspective.

It's annoying.

Your posts are really confusing because you treat sexual orientation and sexual identity as the same thing. They aren't. I'm male. I'm very much male. I'm also gay. A lesbian may be very much female, but gay. Another person (who has a penis) may be very effeminate, but be sexually attracted to people who have vaginas/breasts. And, to round things out, yet another person (who has a vagina) may be butch, but be sexually attracted to people who have penises (penii? what is the plural for schlong?)

Also, due to the cult I grew up in (real Landover Baptist type of people), I kept switching sexual orientation, myself. I, finally, realized that it was just me being in denial and conflicted by who I was vs. how I was raised. Accepting who I was (real down deep acceptance) brought all that to an end.

Personally, the dog metaphor doesn't make much sense to me. I view casting a spell as like performing any other action. For example, I can pick up an object. Anyone can see me pick up that object. Or, I can palm that object. Casting a spell with still, silent, and eschewed materials feats lets me 'palm that object' (ie. stealth cast). Now, anyone can try to prevent mefrom picking up that object if they see me. The act of trying to palm the object does not make it harder for someone to stop me if they try catch me. But, they have to catch me. Since there's nothing to see or hear, catching me is going to require an impressive perception skill.

In my opinion, this interpretation is required to make charms and especially illusions worthwhile.

Darkwing Duck wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Aretas wrote:

ALL the bigot chanters stay on topic or get out.

Consevatives always wins on values

Segregation called, laughed and shook his head at what you just wrote, then hung up.

I'm not sure that's a point in favor of liberals. Seems more like a draw to me given the current state of most black schools.

Fine.

Jim Crow called, laughed and shook his head at what you just wrote, then hung up.

Is that better?

I have to ask you what definition of "Conservative" you're using. FDR was afraid to introduce Civil Rights Legislation for fear of losing southern liberals. I think both liberals and conservatives are responsible for Jim Crow.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Right now, the attitude seem to be (Scott probably disagrees) that it's better for everyone to lower to a mean income, than try to get everyone up above middle class income. The capitalist in me says h!*+*~@&~, lets make everyone rich, distribute the American dream equally. Constantly paying for someone to remain on the dole indefinately will not accomplish this.

How do we do this?

The best overall solution is education, but it's going to be painful to a lot of people. That means working with the unions, since they are full of the people who currently have the most experience. It also means spending more money on education, a lot more money.

HeadStart for example is a program that works. The problem is if the kids don't continue to receive that support, the effects diminish over time and are completely gone within 3-4 years.

At minimum, we need to double how much we are spending on education. A highly educated population is the only one that will be able to respond to the training and retraining necessary to maintain our economic lead.

Being pro-education and being pro-Department of Education are most certainly NOT the same thing.

And remember, to get your players to respect the DM, the DM has to earn that respect.

Not true. To keep players, the GM has to earn respect. But, a GM does not have to worry about earning the respect of his players. He can simply uninvite them from the table.

In fact, the way I think it should work is
A.) GM demands respect from his players
B.) Players unable or unwilling to give that respect leave
C.) Remaining players with have concerns respectfully and at the appropriate time bring them up to the GM
D.) The GM responds to those concerns

I've got no problem kicking a disrespectful player out of the table regardless of their sense of entitlement.

charisma threads need to be a banned topic.

On this, I think I agree.

If a player tries to use charisma as a dump stat and then tries to argue to have the benefits of a high charisma, its a simple thing to have a private discussion with them about game balance and, if that doesn't work, to uninvite them from the table.

Debate about that really isn't necessary.

Some Wicca expert will be here shortly to explain you the error of your ways, my work here is done.

"Wicca" and "expert" are two words that very rarely go together.

When they do, the conversation often gets interesting.

(with respect to Michael Hayne for the first ten)

1. People generally pay their annual income taxes.

2. People generally don’t have spreadsheets in place of a soul.

3. People generally have to make their own breakfast, wipe their own asses, and drive themselves to work in a vehicle that’s cheaper than the mini bar on a corporate jet.

4. People can show their faces in public without the fear of being bludgeoned by custard pies.

5. People don’t usually consider themselves a native of the Dutch Antilles for tax purposes.

6. People don’t generally dump chemicals into their drinking water and sell their coworkers to Vietnam.

7. People generally don’t eat caviar out the anus of a Michelangelo statue for breakfast during an economic recession.

8. People generally don’t forget how many pieces of real estate they own.

9. People generally don’t purchase golden commodes in which to crap on their lunch breaks during an economic recession (see Meryl Lynch CEO).

10. People generally don’t refer to multinational, lifeless, amorphous engines of soul-sucking greed whose sole purpose is to downsize and shed hard-earned American jobs in order to tear apart the earth in the Third World and enslave its local populations as, well, people.

11. People can show you their birth certificates

For pretty much the same reason I hate the magus, the witch, and the mystic theurge, I hate the warlock. Its badly named.

A Warlock is an oath breaker. What about shooting magical rays evokes the idea of an oath breaker? It has no verisimilitude.

137.) Questioning authority is a virtue.

449. Heron of Alexandria decides to apply his mechanics knowledge to something useful. The Industrial revolution gets started centuries ahead of schedule.

He is amazing at it, to the point it doesn't matter if his utility abilities aren't great.

A campaign in which it doesn't matter if a character is useless outside of fighting sounds boring as all hell to me.

People confuse believability with realism. They are related, but aren't the same thing. The tacit rules of most settings in DnD is that everything behaves according to our well known laws of science except where the supernatural is involved (notice that I said 'supernatural', not magic - magic is a subset of supernatural). This is why the supernatural is so cool (if everything breaks the laws of science, doing so isn't so cool, its trite). Another place where the laws of science are regularly broken is on other planes of existence. But that's the whole point of other planes of existence. Breaking the laws of science is an exception. Its meant to be an exception, so that breaking them heightens the event.

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

every body does not consider it a belief system, many definitions, both common usage and specialist define atheism as a negative belief,

Which is still a belief. If atheism is not a religion because it does not have a belief in god, then most of the religions which have ever existed (note that most religions which have ever existed have been animist, animaetist, pantheist, etc.) are not religions either because they do not have belief in a god either.

No.

Nice dodge, squirmy!
Nope. It's not a system of beliefs because there's no system.
You're trying to strawman here and it's not going to go. No one made the argument that all atheists are irreligious, only that atheism is not a religion IN AND OF ITSELF, but rather a descriptor.

I will reiterate: If atheism is a religion, describe to me its tenets. Plural. Otherwise you're a sandman atheist, and a unicorn atheist, etc. merely because of your DISbelief in A deity.

Modern atheism?

Atheists are far more likely to spend time posting on message boards about how 'ridiculous' belief in God is then they are to post about how ridiculous beliefs in Unicorns is. Look at this message board. In the past month or so we've had how many threads where people brought up atheism and how allegedly superior it is to belief in God? And, during that time, how many similar threads have we had on non-belief in Unicorns and how allegedly superior non-belief in Unicorns is to belief in Unicorns? For people who want so desperately to convince us that there is no belief system in atheism, you sure are spending an awful lot of time hammering on your belief system.

As for atheism in general? This gets back to understanding in what context one is using the word 'atheism'. Are you comparing it to theism? Then, I could just as easily ask 'what is the tenets of theism?' Are you referring to a more specific version of atheism? Then which version of atheism?

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Its heavily criticized by people who have never, or rarely, participated. Most of the people who do participate stress the importance of having a good time. Its value has nothing to do with science. Many participants get judged by the actions of a psychologically maladjusted fringe group. In those regards, its like a religion.

Most D&D participants don't believe that their characters are real people, however.

Any outsider who over hears some of the conversations between two or more gamers may disagree.

I think the question of government and chaplains needs to focus on those soldiers whose needs aren't being met. That is to say, if you send a Baptist minister to a group of soldiers and there is a Buddhist soldier in that group whose needs aren't met by the Baptist minister, should that be allowable discrimination? If you say that that soldier can survive without the Buddhist priest, then why can't the other soldiers survive without the Baptist minister? If you insist that the other soldiers have a right to religion which the government can't interfere with, then the same thing goes for the Buddhist soldier.

And philosophy. Logic. A lot of things that aren't needed to make retail workers. :/

absolutely!

The founding fathers explicitly said, in the Treaty of Tripoli, that this isn't a Christian nation.

I'm trying to understand what fabian persecution is. If fabian refers to continually withdrawing until an opportunity to cut the supply lines occurs, is fabian persecution forces pain on someone by retreating against their attack?

Darkwing Duck wrote:

The removal of special privileges is not the same as persecution.

I don't know whether to be embarrassed for Aretas or insulted that he would have the gall to compare having the Ten Commandments taken out of court rooms to obstructing the passage of the violence against women act because it ensures that funding to protect against domestic violence won't discriminate against LGBT people.

Please be honest. I did not make that comparison.

You said that persecution of Christians is worse. That implies that the actual examples of persecution which you provided are worse than any actual example of persecution other groups experience.

The removal of special privileges is not the same as persecution.

I don't know whether to be embarrassed for Aretas or insulted that he would have the gall to compare having the Ten Commandments taken out of court rooms to obstructing the passage of the violence against women act because it ensures that funding to protect against domestic violence won't discriminate against LGBT people.

No, Citizen Duck, I would propose a socialist revolution to smash capitalism and dissolve class society.

Because every socialist country most comparable in size to the United States (forex. the USSR) did/has done so well in improving quality of life for its people.

I am offended when policy that governs us is based on religion

As am I.

1.) Jesus said give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.

2.) When you entangle church and state, the church becomes legalistic. Jesus spent his life fighting against legalism in religion

3.) Believing that religious teachings require the enforcement of politics shows a deep lack of faith in those religious teachings. If the religious teachings are valid, they should be able to stand on their own. If they aren't valid, then we (Christians) should return to the Bible to make sure that we are interpreting it correctly.

4.) The founding fathers of our country who were Christian (that is, the ones who were Christian) believed that both church and government are both better off by keeping them separate. I agree with them.

I find the self-identified 'Christian' social conservatives in politics to be an affront to Christianity verging on being, if not actually being, blasphemy.