Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Gonk is almighty. Gonk is merciful. Gonk is just. Gonk is all-loving. Gonk is all-knowing. Gonk is all-seeing. Gonk is the alpha and the omega. Gonk is magnanimous to his foes and generous to his friends. OBEY GONK!
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
That's because Gonk only has one input socket.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
I should've totally gone the Cerrano route with my comment.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, but then you'll have someone make a TV show about how the pantheon of droids was really a computer virus useing them as hosts or something...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Immortal truth is not subjective. Omega is right: there can be only one.
I really have no problem with elected officials having strong beliefs. I also think it's unrealistic to expect them to be able to completely compartmentalize the influence of those strong beliefs. Where I take issue is when those beliefs come directly into conflict with the precepts of our government. That the founding fathers were at least nominally Christian I think speaks volumes that they were able to set aside their personal beliefs and promise freedom of relgion in the offing of that Bill of Rights thingy.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:I really have no problem with elected officials having strong beliefs. I also think it's unrealistic to expect them to be able to completely compartmentalize the influence of those strong beliefs. Where I take issue is when those beliefs come directly into conflict with the precepts of our government. That the founding fathers were at least nominally Christian I think speaks volumes that they were able to set aside their personal beliefs and promise freedom of relgion in the offing of that Bill of Rights thingy.
I think you have it backwards. Christianity's intended nature is that it pervades every aspect of your life. It can't be compartmentalized. You can't just say "I'm a Christian except when I'm acting as a government official." You have to be the government official God would want you to be, whatever that means, and Christianity does not advocate forcing anyone outside the faith to do anything. The founding fathers didn't put aside their faith in order to promise freedom of religion; their faith REQUIRED them to promise freedom of religion.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
That may be your view of modern Christianity. But that's not exactly how it was typically practiced back then. Or, really, at any point in the first 1900 years or so of its existence.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I really have no problem with elected officials having strong beliefs. I also think it's unrealistic to expect them to be able to completely compartmentalize the influence of those strong beliefs. Where I take issue is when those beliefs come directly into conflict with the precepts of our government. That the founding fathers were at least nominally Christian I think speaks volumes that they were able to set aside their personal beliefs and promise freedom of relgion in the offing of that Bill of Rights thingy.
I think you have it backwards. Christianity's intended nature is that it pervades every aspect of your life. It can't be compartmentalized. You can't just say "I'm a Christian except when I'm acting as a government official." You have to be the government official God would want you to be, whatever that means, and Christianity does not advocate forcing anyone outside the faith to do anything. The founding fathers didn't put aside their faith in order to promise freedom of religion; their faith REQUIRED them to promise freedom of religion.
It is that way of thinking that has prevented gays from getting married and allowed institutions like the FCC to curtail our freedoms like freedom of speech. Some Senators and Representatives feel that their faith tells them to commit these acts which impose on the rights of others.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
