Theocratic United States?

[Southtown]

I am soon to follow. My card has three fans and none of them work. One tries to move a little but only manages to rattle incessantly. Only a matter of time now...

Originally Posted by Turtle

That would be the theists.

I disagree. There are theists who are for (destructive embryonic) stem cell research, and there are atheists who are against it. Why the proponents only push for embryonic destruction is beyond me.

But my point is that everyone has their own morals, and you can't discredit morals on the basis of where they come from. It wouldn't be democratic. You have to evaluate them on their merit. Two examples, 'thou shalt not steal' and 'thou shalt not kill'. Should these be removed from US law on the blind analysis of their origin? Or do they hold an innate civil relevance apart from their origin?

Only when people evaluate the merit of an idea do they draw a practical conclusion of its usage. And only then will we exercise good judgement.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Southtown

I am soon to follow. My card has three fans and none of them work. One tries to move a little but only manages to rattle incessantly. Only a matter of time now...

Took me a while to figure out that by 'fans' you did not mean 'enthusiastic supporters'. I had no idea video cards have their own fans. The solution here was to swap out the defunctive card (with a fan apparently) and replace it with a card from an old machine they had setting around. Apparently some of their games don't work now, but that's no skin off my bum.

Originally Posted by Southoftown

I disagree. There are theists who are for (destructive embryonic) stem cell research, and there are atheists who are against it.

I don't discount this in general, but in specific do we have any avowed atheists in Congress?

Originally Posted by Southernvillage

But my point is that everyone has their own morals, and you can't discredit morals on the basis of where they come from. It wouldn't be democratic. You have to evaluate them on their merit. Two examples, 'thou shalt not steal' and 'thou shalt not kill'. Should these be removed from US law on the blind analysis of their origin? Or do they hold an innate civil relevance apart from their origin?

I assure you these admonitions predate the implied origin.

Originally Posted by SouthofNorth

Only when people evaluate the merit of an idea do they draw a practical conclusion of its usage. And only then will we exercise good judgement.

I'll have to chew on this one; like a good stinky cheese, the proof is in the eating.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I don't discount this in general, but in specific do we have any avowed atheists in Congress?

If so they're not shouting it from the rooftops.