N.A.L.T. Christian

I'm a Christian, but this has always bothered me. Whenever I discuss morals with my mother-in-law, she can't understand the concept of morality outside of religion. She doesn't understand that there might be reasons not to do something other than "God doesn't like it". Which brings up an interesting question.

Most Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, have morality based on God. They don't do bad things because God told them not to. They need a book to tell them what is or is not moral.

Atheists (and humanistic theists like myself) do things because they are the right thing to do. We don't do bad things because we don't want to hurt others, not because someone told us not to.

That being said, which is more moral? To avoid doing bad things because you are afraid of punishment, or to avoid doing bad things because you don't want to hurt others? I think it's safe to say that the later is more moral, don't you? After all, doing something just to safe yourself from punishment doesn't require any morality at all, just self-preservation.

This is obviously just a thought experiment, not an actual suggestion. However, it does provide a solution to the debt crisis other than "let our kids pay for it"

First, we print 17 $1 trillion bills. Debt is now paid off.

However, this will obviously have a drastic negative effect on our economy, so we have a caveat: they only get printed if and when an amendment is ratified which requires us to have a balanced budget every year (no more deficits)

Obviously it isn't the best solution, but there isn't really a good solution. But this way, we actually accept the consequences of our own debt instead of passing it off to our children. Let's pass it!

He claims that he got out of his car to see what street he was on, then got attacked, but that can't be right, since the fight happened on the other side of the row of houses from his car.

I think he did ignore the 911 operator and follow and confront Martin, but since Zimmermann had injuries and Martin did not, that it was Martin attacking Zimmermann.

i think it's funny that the people supporting each side are ignoring obvious lies from the other side. It's obvious Zimmermann followed Martin, since they were so far from the car, but it's also obvious that he did not attack Martin, since Martin had no injuries.

If we're going to teach both sides of the issue in evolution, shouldn't we teach both sides of every other scientifically established principle as well?

Considering that there has never been, in the history of the U.S., a case of the majority being allowed to vote away rights of a minority, I think it's safe to say it would have been overturned, don't you?

96% of Americans polled in 1958 disapproved of interracial marriage:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-ap...

Their disapproval was based mainly on religious grounds. They thought that, since God separated the races after the Tower of Babel, He intended for them to stay separated (proof? see the ruling by judge Leon Bazile in Loving v Virginia). However, in 9 short years, interracial marriage was legalized nationwide by Loving v Virginia, even though 73% of Americans still opposed it.

Now we have same-sex marriage.It is opposed for the exact same reason (people believe it is against the bible). However, recent polls show that over 50%, of Americans support it.

Yet it seems the Supreme Court is not yet ready to proclaim in unconstitutional, even though they did so with less than 25% public support for interracial marriage.

The question then becomes: why the wait?40 years ago, the Court could care less about the public's moral stance on an issue, and now, even having the support of a majority of Americans isn't enough? What has happened in the last 40 years to give conservative Christians such a death grip on social policy?

The funny part is, the party which claims to support freedom and individual liberty is going to be pretty upset! No matter, we libertarians can join the democrats for a day to celebrate!

www.scotusblog.com

The supreme court ruled that UT Austin did not meet the requirements for strict scrutiny in their affirmative action plan.

In other words, there are other non race related metrics they could have used to solve the problem equally well.

Your thoughts? I think it's a good decision. After all, whether or not someone has been disadvantaged has much more to do with their financial situation than their skin color IMHO.

They aren't giving an opinion on prop 8 or doma today. They will before the end of the week, and hopefully they will find discrimination unconstitutional there, too.

I really bothers me to know that there are actual human beings out there who really believe that God has no problem letting millions of innocent children die of starvation every year, but he'll make darn sure some idiot doesn't fall off his tightrope.

I have followed this issue rather closely, and I have changed my mind on who is the guilty party many times. Now, I feel there are two likely scenarios that could have occurred:

1) Zimmerman is telling the truth. He stopped pursuit of Martin, went back to his car, was attacked, and acted in self-defense.

2) Zimmerman is lying, and "the friend on the phone" is telling the truth. He did NOT disengage pursuit of Martin, he confronted Martin and Martin, fearing for his safety, attacked Zimmerman. In this case, Zimmerman is the aggressor and Martin was the one acting in self defense.

(regardless of what many people in this forum will tell you, you do NOT have the right to ask other citizens to show their identification. This is not Nazi Germany. Confronting someone in this manner is considered assault, and Martin would have been acting in self-defense.)

I personally believe #2 is probably the more likely. Zimmerman probably thought (as we all have thought, myself included) "black guy wearing a hoodie - must be a criminal". I also know how security guards and neighborhood watchmen, people who have responsibility they have not earned (unlike policemen or soldiers, who earn theirs) usually let the power go to their head and always act extra pushy. Note - none of these make Zimmerman a bad person, they are just human nature. Regardless, they must be taken into account.

(Also must be taken into account is the levels of THC found in Martin's blood after the event. However, I must say this does not hurt Martin in my eyes, and in fact helps him. I have taken marijuana in my youth, and know that on this drug, fighting is the last thing you want to do. Maybe if he was on cocaine or amphetamines, the story would be different).

That being said, although I BELIEVE Zimmerman may be guilty, with the evidence shown so far I think there is much more than a "reasonable doubt" either way, in which case he should be freed. You can't convict a man based on what most people in his situation would normally do.

And freeing him is probably the best scenario. I'm sure he feels incredibly guilty about this, and I sure that, if he did confront Martin, knowing what would have happened, he would have not done so if given another chance. Either way, it was a sad accident, and putting someone in jail won't solve anything.

If someone is pursuing you down a dark street, I'm pretty sure that's enough reason to defend yourself.But apparently, if the chaser is better armed than you, and kills you, he can claim self defense?

Seriously?

If someone is chasing you down a dark street, shouldn't you have a right to fight to defend yourself?

Especially considering The fact that he was told not to by a 911 operator?

If he were really concerned with defending himself from harm, why didn't he get in his car and leave like he was told to do?

Sure I killed millions of people, but it's only because I loved them so much!

Seriously, the ease at which the Old Testament God ends human life really makes it look like he is the evil deity who just got lucky enough to write his own biography.

They keep asking for proof that Yahweh doesn't exist, so what is their proof that Thor doesn't exist?

How do you explain that the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster correctly predicted that many people would not believe?

Of course, it would have made more sense to not create hell our not require a sacrifice in the first place. But I guess no one accusing God of being efficient ; after all, He spent 6 days creating the world which should have been done in an INSTANT by an all-powerful Being.

Considering that this is the same southern Baptist convention that supported slavery and opposed interracial marriage, I think it is a safe bet to say that they have been wrong on a large majority, if not all, social issues.

That said, doesn't their opposition to the boot scout rule just make you absolutely certain it WAS the right decision?It's a similar yardstick to the kkk.If the kkk supports your cause, you should have a pretty good idea that it's not a good cause.

And considering the southern Baptist convention, like the kkk, had been wrong on pretty much every issue, I think it's safe to assume they are wrong on this one as well.

(Actually, not only have these two organizations been wrong on almost every issue throughout history, they've had almost the same opinion on many of these issues, like slavery and interracial marriage. The only difference is that the southern Baptist convention realizes about 50 years after the fact that they were being stupid and apologizes, woke the kkk is, well, still the kkk)

Anyone want to make a bet? I'll bet that, in 50 years, this sane convention well be apologizing for its former stance on homosexuality like it recently apologized for its former treatment of black people.