1  2  |   Order by index

Feb 4, 2003, 9:18pm

Well?

Chris

Feb 4, 2003, 9:28pm

Countrys surely not.

[View Quote]

Feb 4, 2003, 9:29pm

I said what _Is_ worth fighting for. LOL

Chris

[View Quote]

Feb 4, 2003, 9:32pm

ROFL

[View Quote]

Feb 4, 2003, 10:39pm

Your life, or the lives of those you love and hold most important...

Poseidon

[View Quote]

Feb 5, 2003, 8:29am

Freedom of man (and women)...yeah what a a cliché lol.
We live in a society where they more and more can controll you, by all kind
of electrican cards, mobile phones and surveillance. New laws are made every
day telling you what you cannot do. Religions has told us for ageses what is
apropiate to do. They call it protection, I call it control. We are not
supposed to think ourselves, goverments and media is doing it for us.
So what to fight for? Maybe the right to have an alternative thinking, it
may be totally crazy, but it will be your own.
Maybe fight against authorities and everything considered apropiate by
religions and traditions, but things that are obviusly against logic..heck I
do not know, it will not lead to anything else than you will end up having a
lot of people hating you, but sometimes one can notice someone actually will
understand your alternative thinking ( as many refer to as stupidity).

Drac

sw chris <chrisw10 at skywalkeronline.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e404a60$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Well?
>
> Chris
>
>

Feb 5, 2003, 12:21pm

dont worry, i understand your alternative thinking, and agree with most the
things you say. and as for freedom for women, i agree totaly, they should be
allowed the occasional visit out of the kitchen :P

[View Quote]

Feb 5, 2003, 3:44pm

Why do you think I'm an Athiest :-D

[View Quote]

Feb 5, 2003, 3:53pm

cuz you dont believe in God? :P

[View Quote]

Feb 5, 2003, 7:06pm

Lol

[View Quote]

Feb 5, 2003, 8:43pm

What's worth fighting for is the idea of freedom. However, there are things
about freedom that we need to take into consideration. I'm 17, and the past
few months I've noticed people becoming more radical about their religions
and their certain "books" telling them what's right. I've done a lot of
research into what America meant to our founding fathers, and through the
years mankind has takin the liberty of reversing what our founding fathers
once thought of as "the perfect country." A lot of people don't know that
our founding fathers of the United States were indeed non-religious people,
and their philosophy of "freedom from religion" is what started the country
we live in today. However, people get angry and make their own religions and
have followers just for profit i.e. the "Raelins". I think in order to have
freedom, we have to have freedom from religion NOT freedom of religion. Only
then will we have a right idea of freedom, and only then will we have the
right idea of it to fight for it.

Yeti/Ryan.
[View Quote]

Feb 5, 2003, 9:46pm

I watched a prog on tv once and this bloke (on british tv) couldn't even
smoke outside the statue of liberty... hardly freedom.. hehe... (he was told
not to)

[View Quote]

Feb 5, 2003, 11:44pm

Ah hahahahaha, stupid smoker. shouldn't be smoking anyway. It makes your
lungs black, you find yourself getting sick more often, and makes you
impotent. shouldn't be smoking anyway. All smokers are evil >_<. they can't
even take care of themselves, what makes you think they can take care of
other people?
[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 4:14am

You're not making sense with something...

[View Quote] >[...] I think in order to have freedom, we have to have freedom from religion NOT freedom of religion.

So you're saying here, in order to have freedom, we need the freedom of religion (which we have), and then that we _don't_ need freedom of religion?

Feb 6, 2003, 10:42am

That certainly was an assinine observation from you, Yeti... Got any more
idiocy you'd care to spout???


[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 1:28pm

Yeti, I hope you realize you just upset a lot of people. Even thought
that is your opinion you should really try to word things differently.
You do not want to make enemies with the wrong person... understand that.

neocube a

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 1:50pm

Its not an opinion, its just a blatent generalization. I am personally
against smoking, because of the health risks involved, but I certainly don't
think anyone who smokes is evil, or different in any other way.

Yeti, its fine to make a point, but not a prejudiced, generalized, idiotic
one.


[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 2:22pm

Agreed :)

[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 4:29pm

Yeah, I am a smoker, but I am a moron also, so it kind of suites me .
I am a smoker becuase I hated tobacco smoke, I started to smoke cigars to
piss off the tobacco smokers, who mostly hate cigar smoke. I wanted them to
feel how it feels when irritating smoke is comming in your eyes, so now both
smokers and non-smokers hate me lol.
Second reason was because we got a quite strict smoking law, I belive only
California has a more strict one. That alone would have made me a smoker,
because I cannot stand when goverments are telling us what is good for us
and how we should live.

Now our goverment is planning to make it illegal to buy sex-services, so I
might soon have to start using prostitues also, feel free to donate money to
may paypal account.

Drac
yeti <ryangene at sbcglobal.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e41bde6$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Ah hahahahaha, stupid smoker. shouldn't be smoking anyway. It makes your
> lungs black, you find yourself getting sick more often, and makes you
> impotent. shouldn't be smoking anyway. All smokers are evil >_<. they
can't
> even take care of themselves, what makes you think they can take care of
> other people?
[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 5:49pm

It is freedom of religion. The Constitution states so. "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof... ad verbatim..."

The ACLU and other organizations are aggressively suing people who don't
agree with their leftist views under the pretext that it violates this
clause. Stupid rulings, like not making parking available for a religious
display, or have the Ten Commandments in school. But you can teach classes
on the Koran, Islam, Confusionism, and other religions. How, may I ask,
does the ACLU get away with it?

It has to do with the difference between spirituality and religion.
Spirituality has nothing to do with religion what so ever. Religion does
have everything to do with spirituality. The ACLU purposely confuses to
this point to achieve it's agenda.

It's not a question of fact. The US's founding fathers were indeed
religious people. Ben Franklin called for a prayer to open each session of
the Second Continental Congress. Tom Jefferson, easily the most antiseptic
person of the founding fathers toward religion, respected and practiced his
own form of Christianity. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian
principles. This is all fact.

These principles are ingrained into our government to its very core. But
our government is not religious-anything. It has a spiritual side to it.
Not a religious one. The difference being that each religion is different
and expects something out of someone. Spirituality is purposely open-ended.
In Christianity this is that you have to be saved by accepting Jesus Christ
as your savior. In Islam it is following the Koran and the teachings of
Mohammad. But Spirituality has none of these attached to it.

You see, if you're like me, you believe that for something to be whole, it
has to have physical, mental, and spiritual sides to it. This is true of
the government. If the Government cracks down spirituality under the
pretext that it is religion, it kills off a part of itself and it cannot
govern affectively, because there is then no moral code on which to base
legal judgements.

The Ten Commandments being pulled out of schools are an example of this. So
is the case where the word "God" was pulled out of the Pledge of Allegiance
in the western United States. Yes, the The Ten Commandments are
Judeo-Christian in origin, but do not impose any religious belief on anyone.
However, they establish the same moral code that the US was based upon.
There are other moral codes from other religions that say the same thing.
Therefore they are spiritual in nature, not religious.

As for God being taken out of the Pledge. The Pledge in its current form in
the Federal government (not the western us version) does not state what God
it is referring to. There are gods in every major religion. And for those
who don't have a religion, those who are atheistic, it does not state that
they must have a God in order to feel like a loyal citizen of the United
States. If anyone says that that is what they feel, you can assure them
noone else thinks they are less of a citizen. So if they continue to hang
onto that belief, then there is an agenda hidden somewhere. But I digress.
;P Because there are gods in all religions, and even to those who don't
belong to a religion, the word is spiritual in nature, not religious.

The key paragraph to remember here is that yes Virginia, there is a
difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality has nothing to
do with religion what so ever. Religion does have everything to do with
spirituality.

So that's my case. I can't make you go along with it, but that is how it
really happened. :)

Chris



[View Quote]

Feb 6, 2003, 7:28pm

*blink* Ok, that made a lot of sense. Your government makes strict
smoking laws, so therefore you take up smoking in protest? Not exactly
the most glamorous way to go. :P

[View Quote] --
Goober King
Well, he got the "moron" part right...

Feb 6, 2003, 7:31pm

Actually, the ACLU gets away with that crap because of 5 magic words:
"Separation of Church and State". Doesn't have much to do with Freedom
of Religion. :P

[View Quote] --
Goober King
Separation of brain and body
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Feb 6, 2003, 7:33pm

Count did you ever think... That the government is not telling whats good
for us but instead watching out for the general healths of other people? I
am not a smoker and i live in California Im glad they did enforce those
rules now i can go to a resturaunt or a club and not be gagged by the smoke,
instead have a good time... Its a fact second hand smoke does kill, and the
government is doing such rules to insure that peoples health isnt infrenged
by others stupid decsions...


-Ryan Monday

Feb 6, 2003, 7:41pm

[View Quote] But you can make no law in favor of religions. If one does, you would be violating
that freedom; you would see these customs and regulations in schools as such as
trying to violate your freedom to believe your god is the only god, etc etc.

There should be a line drawn over frivilous lawsuits though. Prayers in school
should not be allowed for a school wide event, but if a student wishes to go into a
room alone and pray, that should be ok.

--Bowen--

Feb 7, 2003, 2:22pm

I have nothing against a law like that as long as you can choose. I think it
should have been made so that the restaurant can choose if it is a
non-smoking or smoking place. Now there have to be a non-smokers side in
each nightclub and bar, this result that it is a hell of a crowd in the
smoking side and the non-smoking is empty, until ppl do not fit into the
smokers side anymore. Then the smokers little by little take over the
non-smoking side. But even if they would not smoke in the non-smoking side
the smoke gets there anyway. The law just require a certain percentage of
tables to be for non-smokers.

When I worked at the filling ststion I smoked in there, if I was alone, or
had a smoking co-worker- If I had a non-smoking co-worker I did not smoke
inside. Customers came into pay their gasoline and spent in general about 50
seconds inside, I doubt if they get a little bit smoke or can smell a bit
tobacco smoke for 2 times in week for 50 secs, that will not kill them. It
is different if you have to be in the smoke for longer periods.
I understand thet smoking is a healthdanger for example restaurantworkers,
if they have to be in the smoke for several hours each day. That is why
there should be a way to choose. Do I have a smokers or non-smokers place?

I know ppl who have smoked for 50 years withouth getting sick, I know of ppl
who has never smoked and yet died in lung cancer. I guess the point is, one
could se common sense in these kind of issues, insted of banning everything
There is also one law saying you cannot smoke in schoolareas, fine with
me,BUT when i went to eveningschool at 7pm and we smoked in the yard, some
bitch came and told us it was illegal. I would not stand and smoke there if
there is children around me, but we were all adults, no children present.
There was once a market and the beertent was placed on the schoolground ( it
was out of schooltime of course) then one could smoke there. I just wonder
what made that so special that nobody bothered protesting then? Maybe
because finns are kind of stubborn when drunk. I personally thought it was a
bad placement of the tent, although school was over, but children was
present, seeing smoking drunk ppl in schoolarea.

I guess the problem with laws often are that things are so or so, nothing in
between. It is not allowed to use common sense.

Drac
artifex <rymonday at hotmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e42d4bc$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Count did you ever think... That the government is not telling whats good
> for us but instead watching out for the general healths of other people? I
> am not a smoker and i live in California Im glad they did enforce those
> rules now i can go to a resturaunt or a club and not be gagged by the
smoke,
> instead have a good time... Its a fact second hand smoke does kill, and
the
> government is doing such rules to insure that peoples health isnt
infrenged
> by others stupid decsions...
>
>
> -Ryan Monday
>
>

Feb 7, 2003, 2:32pm

Most our laws are based on religion. We cannot walk nude if we want to
because bible/ koran teach us we are to be ashemed of our bodies, especailly
some parts of it. We cannot have several wifes, husbands (although I belive
some have read the bible in another way a have), and marriage is a
"religious" thing. Atleast here in Finaland it was not permitted to have
the nightclubs open on christams day. Adultery was(is?) a reason for
divorce. In court of law you are swearing to tell the truth with hand on
bible ( even if you are not christian ?.) and so on...

Drac
bowen <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e42d67a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
[View Quote]

Feb 7, 2003, 2:47pm

[View Quote] Maybe in Europe. Not in America. You can walk naked, be naked, do anything but have
sex naked in public. Sure, some of the smaller towns have laws against it.

> some parts of it. We cannot have several wifes, husbands (although I belive
> some have read the bible in another way a have), and marriage is a
> "religious" thing. Atleast here in Finaland it was not permitted to have
> the nightclubs open on christams day. Adultery was(is?) a reason for
> divorce. In court of law you are swearing to tell the truth with hand on
> bible ( even if you are not christian ?.) and so on...

You're certainly allowed to have several wifes or husbands... that's a personel thing
as well. Adultery is a reason for divorce here though. We don't have to put our
hand on the bible.

Maybe Europe is more religious than America; the irony.

--Bowen--

Feb 7, 2003, 5:28pm

bowen <thisguyrules at 7k2.4mg.com.ANTISPAM> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e43e314 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
[View Quote] I seriously doubt that you are correct now, maybe you could test it for me?
>
belive
have
>
> You're certainly allowed to have several wifes or husbands... that's a
personel thing
> as well. Adultery is a reason for divorce here though. We don't have to
put our
> hand on the bible.

You mean bigamy (spellcheck) is not a crime in USA ? I thought they held a
bible infront you in courtroom, and the senetence ended something like "..so
help me God". Maybe that is only on TV then.
>
> Maybe Europe is more religious than America; the irony.
>
> --Bowen--
>
>

Feb 7, 2003, 7:48pm

> anything but have
> it.
>
> I seriously doubt that you are correct now, maybe you could test it for me?

Someone would cry out that it's foul, but there are certainly no laws against it.
There _are_ nude beaches in some parts of the US. As long as you are not using
nudity for your own personal gain, aka prostitution, it's allowed as far as I'm
aware. I'm sure people in NYC could care less... excluding those... weirdo christian
fundamentalists that just happen to be some old woman most of the time. Coincedence?
I think not.

> belive
> have
> personel thing
> put our
>
> You mean bigamy (spellcheck) is not a crime in USA ? I thought they held a
> bible infront you in courtroom, and the senetence ended something like "..so
> help me God". Maybe that is only on TV then.

Pretty sure it's not a crime, although the IRS doesn't like it too much, I'd suppose.
If your wives/husbands don't bring you to court there's no case. One could just say
"ok, I'll marry one and the other ones aren't my wives(husbands); just roomates" and
it's perfectly legal if bigamy isn't allowed in the area.

They used to hold the bible... now it's just hold your right hand up and agree to
"swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Some still
use the older rendition which adds "so help you god" at the end. Then again, some
courts still use the bible too.

--Bowen--

Feb 7, 2003, 8:42pm

Most all communities have 'public indecency' laws on the books, and have for hundreds of years....... it most certainly IS illegal
to walk around nude in public, unless in a designated area, such as a nude beach, resort, etc....... ask a cop sometime.... my best
friend happens to be one...
And bigamy also definitely is a crime.. albeit rarely prosecuted against...... but then not many ppl actually TRY to have more than
one wife...... (aint one MORE than enough ? ) ;O)
the only exception being, that I'm aware of, is if you're a professed and practicing member of the mormon church (Jesus Christ of
latter day saints) They are by tradition of their religious beliefs, allowed to take more than one wife.... altough women may only
have one husband......BUT, even they rarely do such... It just isnt practiced anymore. More or less a dead tradition, so to
speak.... bit out of date. But still legal.....
So move to Utah, if you want yerself some more wives :OD Just watch out for Donny and Marie, they'll make ya nuts ! hahaha

JB


[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index