These are businesses that have chosen to make their profits on the backs of illegal aliens or they recently immigrated that they can pay a lower wage. By allowing these language requirements we are discriminating against the born citizens of this country in favor of the immigrated citizens who have created this problem.

Why don't we put it to a vote? The simple answers is that no politician wants to sponsor such legislation for fear of alienating any potential voters. I think if you polled the vast majority of Americans you would find support for establishing English as the national language. However, once again our Politicians are struck impotent by the fear of the loss of a few votes. They have lost contact with the needs and wants of Americans and are operating purely upon what is best for their political career rather than what is best for the country.

You can also obtain this state through enlightenment.

You cant prove God exists and you cant prove God doesnt exist so it comes down to two things:

It might be possible to prove that god doesn't exist, depending on your definition of god. If you mean god as described in the Bible, then it's pretty easy to prove he doesn't exist…

I don't have any issue with that in principle. But in practise how do you determine exactly what is literal and what is metaphorical? I mean, it all blends in together. Besides, if creation is a metaphor, then Original Sin is a metaphor, then the death of Jesus on the cross was for... what sin exactly?

it does say in the bible that god wishes us to marry to show others what he wants relationships to be.marriage was concieved from the sins of the time.people were so far from god that he wanted those who were followers to express his intent through marriage.

During family dinner yesterday, our family had a debate over the issue of marriage.
One person said, "marriage is very religious, it's should be about your commitment to God and should be held in a church."
My argument was that marriage is about making a commitment to your partner. Weddings can be spiritual, but I don't believe they need to be held in a church.
So my question is - is marriage a commitment to God, or commitment to your partner?

: Which of these do you think is the greater threat to the "institution of marriage" - 1) the possibility of gays getting married or, 2) the phenomenally high rate of heterosexual divorce?

god doesn't do SH!T.

Polarization

No Thread may exist designated exclusively for Response from a specific Gender, Ethnicity, Orientation, Religion, Public, etc. Such a Thread will be deleted. The entire Concept of a Forum is for anyone to post their Opinions and Thoughts, providing they are On-Topic, on any Threads he or she sees fit.

As an Example:
This is a Question ONLY for the Men to...
This is a Question for the Men to... = No Good !!!
= Is OK !!!
More Examples of No-No's:
Catholics and Mormons need not reply.
I only want truthful Answers from real Lawyers.
I ask that the Elderly not post here because you are not current on ...
This Thread is not a Playground for colored Girls, as I know ...
If you are a MacIntosh-Phobe, don't post here !!!
New Line of Ford Trucks - WOW !!! Chevy Trolls stay out !
You don't like my Recipe, then make your own Thread what you like.
Free Enterprise. Gov't Shleps have no Business in here.
If you haven't been in the Slammer, what are you doing posting ...?
The Common Denominator is:
"You are not Welcome", "Don't post here", "Get Out" ... ie. Exclusion.
Further, any Threads or Topics that call for similar Types of Restrictions may also come under Review on a Case by Case Basis .
While I wouldn't call it a deadly sin, I think that the rationalization of breaking the rules is deadly wrong.
JMO

Anyway, that last was not an "opinion". It's a simple truth. NOBODY can prove "God" exists scientifically or empirically. If you disagree, then do so and silence everyone who holds this "opinion". Or not. Your choice.

RationaliSation please use the Queens English not some american **stardiSed form that offends academics!
there is no 'Z' in this word!!!!!!!!

I was always told as an Anglican that it's important to give to the church. I also feel that if you simply can't afford it all the time, there is nothing wrong with that. There is the idea that you should give what you can. I always try to give something when I go, which is unfortunately not as often as I like given my work schedule and school schedule.

tithing is an old testament commandment. Read Galatians. We are no longer bound by law. Were that so, we would then have no need for grace. There is no implication of tithe in the early church - rather many endorsements for giving.

Of course not. Yet I have to question a church's motives when their buildings (not the plural) cover several city blocks and they have TV production studios and facilities that rival many local stations as well as amusement park rides that are close to Disney level and pastors that live better than some heads of state. Especially when they pay no taxes.

I also have a problem with the fact that a church or other religious group have ulterior motives with their charities. It's called proseltyzing. At what cost is their charity? Their ridiculous dogma has to not only be tolerated (which is fine by me, I can tolerate their nonsensical beliefs when it's no one is trying to sell me on them) but the cost of their charity is their need win converts. I for one, feel that we have far too many dogmatic religious doctrines and beliefs floating around, and not enough practical, scientific thought is allowed to adress societal ills.

If there was more of this belief and less of the "make out your check to (insert church name here)", I would have more respect for…

i see what you are saying.tithing is a faith in god.however, thithing is also to be used as jesus would use it.if you have knowledge of or think it may not be being used as such, and you do nothing to amke it known. you are sinning as the people spending it improperly are. the exact verse doesnt come to me,but knowledge of a wrong doing and not exposing it is as much of a sin as the wrong doing itself.

YOU are the one in need of recovery. Can you hear yourself? Give money, but don't worry about where it goes?

The gospel of prosperity IMO is a religious pyramid scheme with the clergy at the top.

Not even that, it's more pathetic. People are duped into giving that really can't afford it and they're deluded into thinking that every mundane thing they do to get on their feet financially is God blessing them because they gave. An out of work person goes to church and gives 10 bucks that he can't afford. Then by chance he gets a job, that's seen as not his efforts of going out and applying ( which is what he would've done anyway), that's the Lord blessing him, so he's of course urged to give more. Then 6 months later, let's say he gets a raise (which he probably would've gotten anyway on just about any job after that much time), then of course, he's pressured to give more.

I have a problem with this as it discourages rational critical thinking and encourages magical thinking.

Funny you should mention pyramid schemes. Religious zeal and pyramid schemes go hand in hand. Ever been to an Amway (Quickstar) convention? It has all the trappings of an Evangelical meeting and many of the top people in those organizations are UberChristians.

It amazes me that people who support the idea of tithing only give 10%. If god blesses the cheerful giver why not give 20%, 30%, 50% or 80% and live in poverty like the people the church is suppose to help? Why live better than those that have the least among you? Or is it that by giving 10% you feel you are doing your duty to god and he will understand why you are buying that new house, car, furniture, clothes, taking that expensive vacation, or throwing that party for your friends, etc., instead of giving all you can give?

I would like to hear your views on tithing to the church. Fellow christians in my church keep badgering me about giving a tenth of my earning to collection. I earn very little money and although i do give and help the church,i think that you should give as little or as much as you please/can afford, and i am rather offended in their guilt trip manner.

Faith is not wanting to know what is true.

Well.. you could tell him you are stalking him electronically and maybe he'll have some kind of restraining order placed on you.

That should fix it...

Looks like public opinion is DIVIDED!!

Some say, "yes, we have a soulmate"

Others say, "no, we don't have a soulmate"

Maybe, it's better to define what exactly is a soulmate...here's what wikipedia says:

Soulmate (or soul mate) is a term sometimes used to designate someone with whom one has a feeling of deep and natural affinity, friendship, love, intimacy, sexuality, spirituality and/or compatibility. A related concept is that of the twin flame or twin soul – which is thought to be the ultimate soulmate, the one and only other half of one's soul, for which all souls are driven to find and join. However, not everyone who uses these terms intends them to carry such mystical connotations.

So, here's the question "WHAT IS A SOULMATE?"

SuzzieQ, this is a very special explanation you offered to show why depictions of religious life is excluded from Hollywood movies.

Would you care to show us what would be an argument, or not even an argument, but just something, that would show that your theory regarding Satan is not true? I am not saying it's not true, I'm just curious what it would take to disprove it. There must be something, and I'm asking you to point to it.

If a scientist says all things fall down that are thrown up, all we need to disprove him is throw up something that doesn't fall down.

If a man says "you'll go to hell", all to disprove his claim is for you [not you personally, but the general you] to go to heaven.

Everything that has been stated in this world has at least one theoretical way of proving it false. For instance if you say "eating arsenic always kills people", all we need to see is one person thrive after eating arsenic. It's not that the thing would be possible, or even imaginable; but something that is a complete proof that the theory does not stand.

I would like you to please name that event or condition or state that would make your theory on Satan's hidden dynasties proven false. I don't ask you to prove it false, or even name things that can happen in reality; I'm only asking you to state a theoretical happening that would make it look false.

Of course, don't do it if you don't want to. Or please say it cannot be done, by any type of logic or event. I ask you nothing impossible or nothing that you don't want to do. But if you can think of something that can prove the theory of Satan's hidden dynasties prove false, in your opinion, then please describe it for me.

That is not the way that I interpreted that to read. I gathered from the OP that what he was saying is that America reality is defined by devout christianity. American reality is about baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet! Now you can be an American who is a devout christian, but it is incorrect to say that america is the land of devout christianity. Devout christianity is a part of American reality that way politics and corruption is, death and taxes, franks and beans, pornography and prostitution! It's just simply PART of American reality, America is not defined by it the way Islam defines the Middle east. Those middle eastern countries are shrouded in religious mystique. America is not a religious country in the same respect.

And thats why I dont believe you have the right to drag your religion down main street, nailing your ten commandments up on every wall in every building in town. (not that you do, but you would if you could) Keep your religion inside your churches and inside your homes, but keep it out of the public. "Separation of Church and State"

I wasn't referring so much to what happened that caused the relationship to end, although that is important, as much as their feelings about the relationship ending.

For example, a person may say their Ex was a miserable individual. "Miserable" is relative and could mean anything from the individual being absolutely despicable to their having had a melancholy character. In those cases, I agree, it is difficult to determine the validity for ending the relationship. I was referring more to those who remain friends with their Ex or refer to the ending of the relationship in a casual, mattter-of-fact manner.

When in a relationship the decisions I make will be guided by that relationship. For example, if I am thinking about buying a piece of property in the country and my partner has an aversion to mosquitos and black flies, doesn't like outdoor activities, etc. then I probably would not buy such a place. If I was in a relationship with a lady who had two small children I wouldn't consider buying a two seater sport car if I could only afford one car. My decisions would be based on the relationship I was in.

Now, let's say a few years later my partner decides she wants to move on. The country property by the lake is no longer for sale and I'm driving around in a mini-van.

So, the point I'm getting at is terminating a relationship, in my view, is a serious matter. I can't see remaining friends with someone for whom I had adjusted my life, expecting the arrangement to be permanent, while they view it as simply moving on.

Would it help you come to better terms with my parental choices if I told you my children know the Bible and read it regularly, that they choose to follow its precepts and morals as a guide to living, and that they do an excellent job of it? I know, surprising, eh? A Christian child in a Christian home who probably knows the Bible better than most adults -- and reads Harry Potter books!

Just a thought.

And if we're going to add TV to the mix there's:

I can't recall the title, the one with Dan Ackroyd as a "hip" vicar.
"Father Ted" ("Oh, go on, will you not have a wee cup of tea?" and "Gells!")
"Bless Me Father"
"The Vicar of Dibley"("yes, yes, yes, yes.... no")
"Ballykissangel"
"All Creatures Great and Small" -- well, it's not a religious setting (though some would rightly say the Yorkshire Dales are a little taste of heaven), but it is a title made familiar by religious singing.

If you Google religion in movies, you'll find links to several databases that have lists of movies that feature religion. The Yahoo one has over 1000 titles (but they also include politics). There are several lists with 500+ movies listed. CD Universe's "Religion DVD Movies" has 250 titles to peruse. I'd say that the "exclusion" thesis is flawed.

Nope. Though I only read a few chapters from the books, and relied on the movies for my info on the series, my children enjoyed the Harry Potter books, and I've spoke to adults and children I love and respect who also enjoyed them. But I am partial to English countryside scenes, old villages, and steam trains so it may be more of a romantic attachment than anything.

A local church held a Harry Potter themed Backyard Bible Class one summer that was a huge success and got tons of kids talking about good, evil, sin, God, Jesus, doing the right thing, etc. Anyway, I don't buy into the "Harry Potter is EVIL" scare-mongering. I think that good literature is good literature and books are an essential part of expanding a child's imagination and education. But that's me. Others who don't like Harry Potter should feel free not to read the books or see the movies.

I don't think religion is excluded, as such, but I don't think it's as entertaining as other matters. That said, there are lots of religious themes in movies. A constant theme is good conquering evil, a 'religious' theme if ever there was one. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and The Narnia Chronicles were written with 'religious' themes, and were faithfully transcribed into celluloid (or whatever they use these days). Though not all Christmas movies are focused on Jesus, they still maintain the goodness of the message of Christmas (call it the Christmas Spirit if you like). Some would disagree, but I think the Harry Potter movies express a positive 'religious' theme. In fact, when I think of it, religion is rarely portrayed in a negative light except where that portrayal is fair and factually accurate. So I don't think 'religion' gets a bad rap by Hollywood.

Devout Christianity is an essential part of the American reality ?? In what Universe? Another perfect example of how christians seem to think that America is supposed to revolve around them and what they believe. America is NOT a christian nation no matter what some think. Even if 80% of Americans were christian it STILL wouldnt be a christian nation because thats not what this country was built on. America is a ccountry that was open too all people from all parts of life. And they bring here their cultures and rituals and we become this big "Melting Pot"! Perhaps you've heard the term? But some people seem to think that because the Protestant Pilgrims were here first they get to claim this land for Jesus.

The Identity of this country is established in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And NO WHERE in either of those two documents does it state that America is a "Christian Nation" (You can look it up) Hence the concept of "Seperation of Church and State" Now before someone says "Thats not written anywhere", it dosent have to. The Constitution couldnt work if there wasnt.

Religion (Especially christianity) is something that belongs in your heart and mind and remains a personal relationship or ideal that you carry around with you. It dosent belong in the public school systems or anywhere else in public because the "public" is the "State". And Hollywood?..... is part of the "State" Which means it will create whatever will sell. And as everyone knows..."Sex Sells" And nothing is more BORING then religion, christianity, god or jesus. Except of course to christians. Thats why we dont see it expressed as normal everyday life... because it isnt!

I have to state that if this happened within the United States, he would have more than likely received a few years in prison, due to the fact, a child's life within the US is not equivalent to an adult's, our laws need to change. Japan did the right thing, I only wish the US would follow their example with the child killers within our own country.

My earlier post about distinguishing mental illness from physical still applies - if someone happens to have a seizure and ends up killing someone, how is that any different from a mentally ill person who is experiencing hallucinations or delusions and kills someone? How is it justifiable to punish such a person? Their actions are not their own, hence they cannot be blamed.

Those of you who advocate punishment or death for those who, through no fault of their own, are suffering from an illness should think very hard about what they are saying. There is no conscious choice involved here. This forum shows just how maligned individuals with mental illness really are…

according to the bible the laws of man are the laws of god, it also states that he condones capital punishment for even the most insignificant of crimes like disobedience

which would be more criminal, to execute a man that was found guilty by a jury of his peers
and sentenced to death for a crime he did commit or to free a man found guilty of child
molestation based on his physical stature or the fact that the judge didnt see prison as
punishment, before you balk, both have happened within the last couple of years in 2
different jurisdictions

I like the way you see it forumschick. It shows a very mature emotional level I think. If its possiable for someone to make those choices not based on past experiences shows maturity in my eyes. Though I think this is hard for most people to do.

I am interested in how you interpret any shows of anger in Jesus' s teachings . A friend and I have been discussing it and I always like to have a lot of different viewpoints. Does anger have a place within compassion and forgiveness or should we learn to control anger so that we no longer have to express it?
How would you interpret the following:
"If you go into a town and the people there do not welcome you - then leave that place - shaking the dust from your sandals as you go".
(I am not sure where in the bible it is written, what does it imply to you?)
My understanding is that the goal in mastery is to stay centered at all times and not move to extremes of behavior. To walk the middle path at all times. We then experience our full power and can overcome anything. By using our will, we can stay centered, calm and peaceful at all times. It is my feeling this is how we master the Law of Cause and Effect and in fact many other universal laws as they seem to build on one another. If we are unable to control our emotions and monitor our thoughts and feelings as they are experienced, a build up of a 'negative' emotion can causes us to show extreme behaviour from which it can be a challenge to free ourselves.
Is this in Jesus's teachings?

Jesus will not return as a person and be seen by anyone, so if anyone even makes a claim to be Christ then they are lying. Nor will the world ever see the True Christ again.

Hi forumschick, the "free will" I referred to is the ability to make choices that are not externally determined and of which the decisions reached are without outside coercion. I can't agree that the religious connotations of Free Will (note capitalization) don't warn you anymore than the general (un-capitalized) term does. Religiously the choice is yours, but not without damaging your immortal changes of survival; this as opposed to perhaps merely mortal ones in general terms - the former certainly no belief of mine. :)

Forumschick.....I see you dont go back and read much. Here is message #81! read up!

Wiki has Faith as "a profound belief or trust in a particular truth, or in a doctrine that expresses such a truth."

The first problem I have with faith is the notion that truth is static. Truth is completely objective and based on each individuals understanding. Understanding is ONLY gained through experience which no two people share.

That's why spirituality/religion has always been difficult to explain to someone else. Unless you have VERY similar leveling of understanding it's almost impossible to try and explain yourself. Not only that but if they do not gain the proper understanding to 'walk on their own' so to speak you will forever either be walking for them or they'll be 'stuck' at one level of understanding indefinitely because they won't have the tools to progress.

(Hmmm sounds a lot like Religion... shh don't think for yourself just do what I say, who cares if you don't UNDERSTAND, if you just go along with me you'll be fine.. well at least until I leave, but don't worry... why would I leave ;) )

Now please go read msg 84 and understand there is a difference between fatih and blind faith. Thats why there 2 different words!

Message 84:
So blind faith would be the definition of the word Faith that thatottguy found minus the word truth! That would only make sence. Blind faith: a prafound belief or trust in a paticular doctrine that expresses such. Just an idea! That is what believers do!

It's also one of the symtoms of schitzophrenia..

And as long as it doesn't undermine your ability to have and use free will within the bounds of the law and without fear of retribution.

It has been said that the more educated a person is the less they believe in god. However this isn't always the case. Some very well educated people believe in god. I am definitely not a well educated or even a well read person but can see the importance of believing something that doesn't require faith or 'blind faith'.

So perhaps some of the more educated believers could shed some light on why they still believe in something that requires blind faith. What led you to believe as you do when there is not proof that a god exists?

Less than 7% of members of the Academy of Sciences are religious, faith is big among window licking trailer park dwellers... draw your own conclusions...