Topic: Kane VS The US Goverment: Marijuana

[shemps#1]

There are many myths about marijuana out there today; most of them are being taught by the (US) Government. In this essay I will look at what an anti-pot Government website (theantidrug.com) has to say about weed, and determine through my own experiences what is true and what isn’t. It is my hope to call the Government out on their flat-out lies, and shed some light on the half-truths.

I should give you some background on my experience with marijuana, and drugs in general, to start. I smoke pot whenever I get the chance, which is not everyday. Quite frankly, it would be too expensive for me to smoke on a daily basis. Sometimes I’ll go through a string of a month or so where I constantly smoke pot, and other times I will not get a chance to smoke for an even longer period of time. In other words, I smoke weed whenever I get a chance, and if I could smoke it everyday I would. I am a regular tobacco smoker, 8-10 non-filtered cigarettes a day, and drink only socially. Being that I’m not a very social person, I do not drink very often. I have light beer in my fridge that I only drink when my father comes over, and Jack Daniels in my cabinet that hardly gets touched. I have snorted cocaine once and also dropped liquid LSD once.

With that out of the way, let’s dig in!

Harmless?

The problem with looking at this, or any other anti-drug Government website is that they geared towards parents with children and focus mostly on the “effects” on children. I do not advocate young children smoking marijuana. I didn’t first smoke it myself until I was 19 years old. With that said, I see no problem in the average 16 year old smoking pot on occasion.

From theantidrug.com

“Marijuana use can lead to a host of significant health, social, learning, and behavioral problems at a crucial time in a young person's development. Getting high also impairs judgment, which can lead to risky decision making on issues like sex, criminal activity, or riding with someone who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol.”

This is a great example of the Government pulling ideas out of its collective ass. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that getting high is going to lead to unprotected sex. If someone is going to have unprotected sex while high, they are going to have unprotected sex when they aren’t high. Marijuana, while more potent than when the Woodstock Generation was toking up when they were young, is still not powerful enough to invoke a sexual wildness in a person that isn’t there in the first place.  The same goes for crime and riding with someone under the influence; if someone is capable of or willing to commit these acts while high, they would do them while sober.

The fact of the matter is, too much of anything can be bad. I’m sure that anyone who has been through or is currently in high school remembers the stoner sect; the slow-witted, acme-plagued burnouts wearing Grateful Dead t-shirts and not showering for weeks on end. They have smoked too much weed at too young of an age. As for me, I can safely say that at no point while high have I committed a violent crime or engaged in risky sexual behavior. I usually snack and watch South Park (or Simpsons, Family Guy, cartoons of the like).

Addiction

From theantidrug.com

“Don’t be fooled by popular beliefs. Kids can get hooked on pot. Research shows that marijuana use CAN* lead to addiction. Each year, more kids enter treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined.”

*emphasis mine

This is an example of what I like to call a “half-truth”. Sure, anyone can become addicted to marijuana, just as anyone can get addicted to chocolate, coffee, soda, candy, meat, or anything else you can think of. Some people have addictive personalities, and are looking for anything to get hooked on. I had a roommate at one time who was indeed addicted to marijuana. She would look for any excuse to dip into her boyfriend’s stash, and when said stash was depleted she would comb the floor looking for specs of pot that might have fallen. She, however, is in the minority. Every other pot smoker I’ve encountered does not act that way. When I am not smoking pot there is no chemical reaction that makes me jones for some more, unlike when I haven’t had a cigarette for an extended period of time. There is no conclusive evidence that smoking pot leads to addiction. In fact, a report that was ordered by President Richard Nixon and then destroyed by Nixon stated that marijuana was LESS harmful than tobacco or alcohol (if anyone knows where I can get my hands on a copy of said report, or whether or not there are any copies remaining please let me know).

Gateway Drug

A common misnomer about marijuana use is that it will lead to "harder" drugs such as cocaine, heroin, meth, ecstacy, etc. As I stated earlier I have tried coke and LSD, and have not become addicted to them. Coke was nice but not for me, and LSD was cool but not something I would want to take on a regular basis. I'll bet dollars to donuts that most pot smokers do not get hooked on the "harder" stuff. I know I didn't.

Effects

This website has many examples of how long-term use of how marijuana allegedly effects a person’s memory, attention span, and learning ability. A prime example is quoted below:

“A study of college students has shown that critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning are impaired among people who use marijuana heavily, even after discontinuing its use for at least 24 hours. Researchers compared 65 "heavy users," who had smoked marijuana a median of 29 of the past 30 days, and 64 "light users," who had smoked a median of 1 of the past 30 days. After a closely monitored 19- to 24-hour period of abstinence from marijuana and other illicit drugs and alcohol, the undergraduates were given several standard tests measuring aspects of attention, memory, and learning. Compared to the light users, heavy marijuana users made more errors and had more difficulty sustaining attention, shifting attention to meet the demands of changes in the environment, and in registering, processing, and using information. The findings suggest that the greater impairment among heavy users is likely due to an alteration of brain activity produced by marijuana.”

Pay close attention to the “period of abstinence”. Just like every other example the “period of abstinence” is short. This is done by design, because if this site were to be more truthful they would tell you that the LONG TERM effects of marijuana smoking are damn near non-existent. Another point of contention: everybody is different, has a different DNA structure. Therefore these “studies” cannot be at all accurate whether you use 129 people or 129,000,000 people. Marijuana will affect everybody differently. There are many people who can easily function just fine while high. My own sister, who is a heavy pot user, smokes when she wakes up, goes to work, smokes during her lunch break, smokes when work is over, and she excels at her job as a graphic designer. The webmaster of this very site has worked on this site while high. In other words, these studies are bullshit and you won’t know how marijuana affects you until you smoke it.

Criminality

The website talks about “criminal behavior”: some instances have already been quoted. The “criminal behavior” that most pot smokers are guilty of is possession and usage of marijuana. Smoking weed is nothing more than a moral crime. The only person you may hurt is yourself, despite what the government sponsored commercials which show stoners running over little girls on bikes and decrepit old ladies waiting for their high grandchildren to take them out somewhere may tell you.

Marijuana became illegal in the country because of racism. This is detailed wonderfully in the marijuana episode of the History Channel’s excellent series on illegal drugs called “Hooked”. “We want the Wetbacks out of this country. Those Spics brought marijuana into this country. If we say these Beaners use pot to fuck our precious, virginal white women we can get them out of here”. That should be enough to show anyone how morally wrong these drug laws are.

Then there is the fact that the Government is spending billions upon billions of our tax dollars fighting a war there is no chance of winning. The government has no chance in Hell of ridding this country of marijuana or any other illegal drug. The money spent burning pot plants in South America and throwing otherwise law-abiding people in jail for holding a dimebag could be spent on more worthwhile ventures. Perhaps that is too much to ask of the mental midgets on Capital Hill.

The Final Word

Simply put, I do not want the US Government telling what I can or cannot put in my body. If this country is truly free country, I can shoot myself up with gasoline if I wanted to. It’s my body, and I should be able to smoke, snort, and shoot what I want to.

As for the children, they shouldn’t have the same rights that I do. However, it should be up to PARENTS to tell them about drugs such as marijuana, not the fucking Government.


Next time: Getting racist with the Census.

[Dunrobin]

Marijuana May Spur New Brain Cells
by STEVE MITCHELL
October 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 (UPI) -- Scientists said Thursday that marijuana appears to promote the development of new brain cells in rats and have anti-anxiety and anti-depressant effects, a finding that could have an impact on the national debate over medical uses of the drug.

Other illegal and legal drugs, including opiates, alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress the formation of new brain cells when used chronically, but marijuana's effect on that process was uncertain.

Now, a team led by Xia Zhang of the department of psychiatry at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon may have found evidence the drug spurs new brain cells to form in a region of the brain called the hippocampus, and this in turn reduces anxiety and depression.

Marijuana appears "to be the only illicit drug whose capacity to produce increased ... neurons is positively correlated with its (anti-anxiety) and anti-depressant-like effects," Zhang and colleagues wrote in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The paper was posted online Thursday.

In the study, rats were given injections of HU210 -- a synthesized version of a cannabinoid chemical found in marijuana -- twice per day for 10 days.

Zhang told United Press International this would be "a high dose" of smoked marijuana, but he added he is not certain how many equivalent joints it would take or whether patients now using the drug typically would be getting this much HU210.

Although HU210 was injected, Zhang said there would be no difference if it was obtained by smoking marijuana.

The rats showed evidence of new neurons in the hippocampus dentate gyrus, a region of the brain that plays a role in developing memories.

Zhang's team suspected the new brain cells also might be associated with a reduction in anxiety and depression, because previous studies had indicated medications used to treat anxiety and depression achieve their effect this way.

To find out, they treated rats with HU210 for 10 days and then tested them one month later. When placed in a new environment, the rats were quicker to eat their food than rats that did not receive the compound, which suggested there was a reduction in anxiety behaviors.

Another group of rats treated with HU210 showed a reduction in the duration of immobility in a forced swimming test, which is an indication the compound had an anti-depressant effect.

Asked how he thought the findings might impact the debate over using marijuana to treat medical conditions, Zhang said, "Our results indicate cannabinoids could be used for the treatment of anxiety and depression."

He added that his view is "marijuana should be used as alcohol or nicotine," noting "it has been used for treating various diseases for years in other countries."

Last June the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 that the federal ban on marijuana supersedes the laws of certain states that allow the substance to be used for medicinal purposes, such as the treatment of pain, nausea in cancer patients and glaucoma. Eleven states have passed laws legalizing marijuana use by patients with a doctor's approval, including California, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

The Bush administration, through the Department of Justice's Drug Enforcement Agency, began conducting raids in California in 2001 on patients using marijuana. Two of those arrested by the DEA -- Angel Raich, who suffers from brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who used the drug to help alleviate chronic back pain -- sued Attorney General John Ashcroft, requesting a court order to be allowed to grow and smoke marijuana, which led to the Supreme Court decision.

Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst with the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, told UPI he thought the findings "would have a positive impact on moving forward this debate, because it is giving ... a scientific explanation that further supports long-observed anecdotal evidence, and further lends itself to the notion that marijuana, unlike so many other prescription drugs and controlled substances, appears to have incredibly low toxicity and as a result lacks potential harm to the brain that many of these drugs have."

The DEA Web site, however, contends that "marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug that poses significant health threats to users," including cancer and impaired mental functioning.

Armentano said this is a distortion of what scientific studies actually show. Studies in animals indicate marijuana actually may protect against many forms of cancer, rather than cause the disease, he said. In addition, studies in marijuana smokers have found little evidence of cognitive deficits, and even when they do, the defects disappear if the person stops smoking for 30 days.

--

E-mail: sciencemail@upi.com

SOURCE:  http://www.upi.com/HealthBusiness/view.php?StoryID=20051013-024854-9860r

[Bruckman]

I read this back when Jim first posted it but was too busy to make any reply. I found it illuminating (if that ain't quite the word I want to emply on a piece about marijuana), mostly for its deflation of commonly-held myths which governmental propagandists like to deploy in their framing of anti-drug legislation.

As i often like to say, "Unlike Bill clinton, I've never smoked pot, but I have inhaled." Back in college, one of my roommates was a marijuana smoker. Sometimes we'd be sitting on the couch watching TV while he smoked, so I undoubtedly inhaled some secondhand.

My roommate's frequency of consumption was approximately that of Jim's. It was an occasional, usually social, activity (pass the roach around etc.). He was a heavier tobacco smoker than Jim, often getting up to the pack-a-day habit. Despite all this he was a fair athlete and could beat me at racquetball ( and he was 32 to my 20!).

The only results of his consumption I ever noticed were his habits of consuming odd things at odd hours. Rice Krispie Squares were his favorite munchy, bacon and eggs second. If I came in at 11 pm and found him cooking bacon and eggs, it was a sure indication he'd been smoking while I was out. (He was courteous enough not to expose me to too much secondhand smoke). The fact he could make something as complicated as Rice Krispies Squares from scratch after a toke - when I had difficulty w/the same stone cold sober - says much for his abilities. He often seemed more focused after pot, not less. He could also compose goofy, ad lib poetry in the same state, but all the lines rhymed and scanned and made sense - unlike a lot of poetry no matter how extemporized!

He used mainly to relax. He wasn't a terribly ambitios guy, and some might put that down to using, but I strongly suspect he wouldn't have been very ambitious in a worldly sense no matter what. He was one of those hippies of the 60s who'd outlived his age into the 80s and was content to work occasinal jobs and enjoy life - a lifestyle which seems attractive to me 20 years later.

[johnsimmons]

Hi everybody..Nice forum..I like very much..
==================================
simmons
http://www.marijuanaaddictiontreatment.com

[Dunrobin]

Marijuana addiction treatment

Marijuana is the most controversial drug as to the danger for dependency, physical health and mental problem. Don't get mislead! Most of the hard drug users have started their addiction with marijuana.

What a complete load of utter bullshit!  People should be ashamed of themselves for lying to such an absurd degree.  You aren't seriously promoting that "Marijuana Addiction Treatment" web site, are you?

[AmalgamatedMoron]

Fascinating discussion.  However, you cannot ethically defend working yourself into an altered state of consciousness.  But then again, I do tend toward a more libertarian stance on this issue (my main concern not being private use, but this garbage being peddled to children at school), and my argument is theological.  Perhaps some candor from the pro-pot folk concerning the "negatives" of getting high would be helpful in arguing against the half-truths and propaganda of our blessed government. 

I simply cannot relate to the desire to "get high", either by alcohol or drugs.  I've never been drunk or high a single day of my 35 years.  Sorry guys, I don't like our current government structure anymore than the rest of you.  But as for getting stoned out of your mind--I have no sympathy for those who have trouble with the law, or those who have trouble in finding a supply of their dope. 

[shemps#1]

Fascinating discussion.  However, you cannot ethically defend working yourself into an altered state of consciousness. 

I sure can! Every person's body is their own and not the property of the US Government or anyone else (once you turn 18 that is, before then it's the property of the child's parents). No government on this planet has the right to tell me what I can or cannot use; especially not one that proclaims "freedom". I'm not saying that everyone should smoke pot: I'm saying everyone should have the choice to smoke pot (crack, or anything else they want to smoke/shoot/snort) without fear of being arrested.

But then again, I do tend toward a more libertarian stance on this issue (my main concern not being private use, but this garbage being peddled to children at school), and my argument is theological.

If pot is legalized it almost takes it out of the hands of the stereotypical peddlers you speak of and behind store counters. I would be more than happy if marijuana was regulated in the same way alcohol and tobacco (far more dangerous drugs) are. Will children still get a hold of pot? Sure they will.  What curbs the tide of children trying/regularly using narcotics? Parents being responsible and doing their fucking jobs instead of waiting for Big Brother to do it for them.

Perhaps some candor from the pro-pot folk concerning the "negatives" of getting high would be helpful in arguing against the half-truths and propaganda of our blessed government.

Let's see...when I smoke pot I want to do absolutely nothing and find even the dumbest shit interesting. I also ordered a Carpenters CD while I stoned one time. Those are pretty much the only negatives I can think of.

I simply cannot relate to the desire to "get high", either by alcohol or drugs. I've never been drunk or high a single day of my 35 years.  Sorry guys, I don't like our current government structure anymore than the rest of you. But as for getting stoned out of your mind--I have no sympathy for those who have trouble with the law, or those who have trouble in finding a supply of their dope.

Here's where the inherent problem in political thought lies with most people: "I don't agree with you and it doesn't effect me so I don't care if that liberty is being trampled upon". I'm not fond of firearms but I'll defend a person's right to keep and bear them. I'm also not much of a drinker but if I were around during Prohibition I would have been building a Speak Easy. I don't care for racism but I'll defend a person's right to be as ignorant as they want.

[FineBari3]

I sure can! Every person's body is their own and not the property of the US Government or anyone else (once you turn 18 that is, before then it's the property of the child's parents). No government on this planet has the right to tell me what I can or cannot use; especially not one that proclaims "freedom". I'm not saying that everyone should smoke pot: I'm saying everyone should have the choice to smoke pot (crack, or anything else they want to smoke/shoot/snort) without fear of being arrested.

Let's see...when I smoke pot I want to do absolutely nothing and find even the dumbest shit interesting. I also ordered a Carpenters CD while I stoned one time. Those are pretty much the only negatives I can think of.

Here's where the inherent problem in political thought lies with most people: "I don't agree with you and it doesn't effect me so I don't care if that liberty is being trampled upon". I'm not fond of firearms but I'll defend a person's right to keep and bear them. I'm also not much of a drinker but if I were around during Prohibition I would have been building a Speak Easy. I don't care for racism but I'll defend a person's right to be as ignorant as they want.

Well said, bro!

Was ROTFLMAO about the Carpenter's CD! We used to get baked in college and watch infomercials...and wind up with some crazy stuff.

I don't like to drink to excess, and I have had only one hangover in my life, when I was 33.  I would rather smoke pot than drink; I can get many things accomplished, play the drums or my horn, or listen to music, and have a wonderful time.

[metaldams]

Well said, bro!

Was ROTFLMAO about the Carpenter's CD! We used to get baked in college and watch infomercials...and wind up with some crazy stuff.

I don't like to drink to excess, and I have had only one hangover in my life, when I was 33.  I would rather smoke pot than drink; I can get many things accomplished, play the drums or my horn, or listen to music, and have a wonderful time.

Hah!  I was hungover once in my life as well, and was a good 10 years younger!  Not a big drinker, mostly because alcohol's not good when you're on anti-depressants.

Never smoked pot, but am open to it.  I also believe anybody should do whatever they want to their own body (legally, I don't support heroin use amongst my own friends), as long as they aren't impaired while doing something that can effect the lives of others (i.e. driving).

[shemps#1]

Hah!  I was hungover once in my life as well, and was a good 10 years younger!  Not a big drinker, mostly because alcohol's not good when you're on anti-depressants.

Never smoked pot, but am open to it.  I also believe anybody should do whatever they want to their own body (legally, I don't support heroin use amongst my own friends), as long as they aren't impaired while doing something that can effect the lives of others (i.e. driving).

Well that's where narcotics being regulated like alcohol comes in.

[AmalgamatedMoron]

I sure can! Every person's body is their own and not the property of the US Government or anyone else (once you turn 18 that is, before then it's the property of the child's parents). No government on this planet has the right to tell me what I can or cannot use; especially not one that proclaims "freedom". I'm not saying that everyone should smoke pot: I'm saying everyone should have the choice to smoke pot (crack, or anything else they want to smoke/shoot/snort) without fear of being arrested.

I had said that my argument was relative to ethics and theology, not the government issue of regulation per se.  There are behaviors that are unethical, that our government does not outlaw with the punishment of imprisonment, such as adultery.  You can however be taken to the cleaners by your spouse in civil court over adultery, but that is a different matter.  And just so we are clear, every person's body is not their own, but is the "property" of God alone. 

I believe in the two kingdom theology that came out of the Reformation, so therefore I see that at times the government's powers have to be limited in what they can outlaw and punish.  An obvious example where they should not abstain from prosecution is theft and murder.  Not only for the grave ethical issues involved, but for the more practical as well.  If theft and murder were not illegal, then imagine the chaos and anarchy that would ensue.  People would do whatever they damn well please relative to these issues, such as helping themselves to anything they want, at any time, and without paying for it; and "settling" disputes with their neighbor using deadly force.

Having said that, legalizing all drugs is not as simple as it sounds.  I can imagine all manner of negative scenarios that might present themselves if such were the case.  It's a much more complicated issue than the pot-heads and junkies want to make it out to be.  Libertarianism sounds good on paper, but is not so simple on a practical level, not to mention the ethical questions that arise.  Freedom is ideal, even superior.  But unabated freedom, to do whatever I want, whenever I want, is not.  That anything is "legal", does not mean it is good, moral, or edifying.

[Dunrobin]

I believe in the two kingdom theology that came out of the Reformation, so therefore I see that at times the government's powers have to be limited in what they can outlaw and punish.  An obvious example where they should not abstain from prosecution is theft and murder.  Not only for the grave ethical issues involved, but for the more practical as well.  If theft and murder were not illegal, then imagine the chaos and anarchy that would ensue.  People would do whatever they damn well please relative to these issues, such as helping themselves to anything they want, at any time, and without paying for it; and "settling" disputes with their neighbor using deadly force.

Do you honestly believe that a government law is all that keeps people from killing each other, or that it does anything to actually prevent anyone from killing another person if that is what they have chosen to do?  If so, can you offer up any evidence to prove such an assertion, because from empirical evidence alone that assertion is disproved.

The old adage "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" was made back when "the law" was limited and made sense.  Everyone knows instinctively that the initialization of force against others (i.e., theft, assault, murder, etc.) are wrong; we don't need a man-made "law" to tell us that.

I had said that my argument was relative to ethics and theology, not the government issue of regulation per se.  There are behaviors that are unethical, that our government does not outlaw with the punishment of imprisonment, such as adultery.

Are you claiming that smoking pot is unethical or immoral?  If so, what are you basing that claim on?

I strongly urge you to read Lysander Spooner's Vices Are Not Crimes for more insight into this subject.


As a Christian I believe that governments are, by their very nature, inherently evil; an invention of the Devil, if you will.  One of the primary stories taught throughout the Bible is that man-made governments are a very bad idea, and are contrary to God's intentions for us.  Christ came to bring us back to Liberty, not to enslave us to the wills of other men.

Here's a couple more fascinating articles to read and think about:

Jesus Is An Anarchist

Romans 13  (PDF file)   (Note: the link for this one has been corrected.)

[AmalgamatedMoron]

Do you honestly believe that a government law is all that keeps people from killing each other, or that it does anything to actually prevent anyone from killing another person if that is what they have chosen to do?  If so, can you offer up any evidence to prove such an assertion, because from empirical evidence alone that assertion is disproved.

Government imposed laws do curb crime.  Not necessarily for hardened criminals, or those pathologically disposed to do such things, but for many of us they do.  Let's be honest.  If there were absolutely no laws against any action or behavior, even you and I Rob--both "law abiding citizens"--would at times, perhaps in a fit of rage or anger, go beyond what we would otherwise do.  With laws in place though, we do not (most of us, most of the time) do these things, because we love our freedom more than the desire to do that which would land us in prison.  But if there were no consequences, then what would stop us?  Our sin nature would run unimpeded.

The old adage "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" was made back when "the law" was limited and made sense.  Everyone knows instinctively that the initialization of force against others (i.e., theft, assault, murder, etc.) are wrong; we don't need a man-made "law" to tell us that.

Theologically, that is a half-truth.  But the point is, even if we do not need a law to tell us that, we need a law to reign in the crime and anarchy that would ensue in a lawless society.  That we see problems in our government and the laws she sometimes enacts, it certainly does not follow that we adopt an antinomian philosophy.

Are you claiming that smoking pot is unethical or immoral?  If so, what are you basing that claim on?

I strongly urge you to read Lysander Spooner's Vices Are Not Crimes for more insight into this subject.

I am making that claim.  Since I am a Christian I derive knowledge of such things from a Christian epistemology, which means the Bible alone can answer such questions.  This it does rather clearly.

As a Christian I believe that governments are, by their very nature, inherently evil; an invention of the Devil, if you will.  One of the primary stories taught throughout the Bible is that man-made governments are a very bad idea, and are contrary to God's intentions for us.  Christ came to bring us back to Liberty, not to enslave us to the wills of other men.

Here's a couple more fascinating articles to read and think about:

Jesus Is An Anarchist

Romans 13  (PDF file)
 

With all due respect, I must strongly disagree.  The Bible teaches that governments are not "inherently evil", but are corrupt by the sinful men that run them.  The Bible teaches that God instituted human government, and endowed it with power to punish sin (Romans 13, which you mentioned).  In a fallen world, more often than not unfortunately, civil government is corrupt and evil.  But this is not an "inherent" problem to the very idea of government, for to have rulers over us is good thing in and of itself, when they do their jobs correctly, and ethically.  But when they do not, they are a burden to us in many ways.  Good government is not to be "enslaved to the wills of other men", but is to carry out God's purpose for human rulers over us in this dispensation.  To serve and protect the people.  This is their duty and purpose.

[Dunrobin]

I am making that claim.  Since I am a Christian I derive knowledge of such things from a Christian epistemology, which means the Bible alone can answer such questions.  This it does rather clearly.

I strongly disagree that it does, and in fact the argument can be made from the Bible for just the opposite attitude:

¹¹ And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
¹² And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

 (...)

²⁹ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
³⁰ And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Surely not saying that God was mistaken in these passages, are you?   

The point is that cannabis, or marijuana, is called "weed" for a reason - it grows damned near anywhere.  It has also been used for multiple purposes throughout the history of mankind, until elitist, racist busybodies in the 30's propagated deliberate lies about marijuana in order to get it illegally banned by the Federal government.   

Please point out any specific passages where pot smoking is declared a sin in the Bible and I'll gladly concede the point and admit that I am wrong, but I believe that you are seeing prohibitions where there are none.

In regards to your comments on government, I think you're dead wrong, but you'd hardly be the first Christian who is.  Please actually read that dissertation on Romans 13 that I linked to (and the Jesus Is An Anarchist article as well), and then we can discuss it.

[shemps#1]

I had said that my argument was relative to ethics and theology, not the government issue of regulation per se.  There are behaviors that are unethical, that our government does not outlaw with the punishment of imprisonment, such as adultery.  You can however be taken to the cleaners by your spouse in civil court over adultery, but that is a different matter.  And just so we are clear, every person's body is not their own, but is the "property" of God alone. 

I believe in the two kingdom theology that came out of the Reformation, so therefore I see that at times the government's powers have to be limited in what they can outlaw and punish.  An obvious example where they should not abstain from prosecution is theft and murder.  Not only for the grave ethical issues involved, but for the more practical as well.  If theft and murder were not illegal, then imagine the chaos and anarchy that would ensue.  People would do whatever they damn well please relative to these issues, such as helping themselves to anything they want, at any time, and without paying for it; and "settling" disputes with their neighbor using deadly force.

Having said that, legalizing all drugs is not as simple as it sounds.  I can imagine all manner of negative scenarios that might present themselves if such were the case.  It's a much more complicated issue than the pot-heads and junkies want to make it out to be.  Libertarianism sounds good on paper, but is not so simple on a practical level, not to mention the ethical questions that arise.  Freedom is ideal, even superior.  But unabated freedom, to do whatever I want, whenever I want, is not.  That anything is "legal", does not mean it is good, moral, or edifying.

Don't you EVER try to force your theological dogma on me again. I am an irreligious atheist: that means I do not believe in the existence of any higher power, so there isn't any fucking "God" that owns me, "just so we're clear". I own my body, nobody or nothing else. How dare you....you have absolutely no fucking right to attempt to force your beliefs on me or fit me into your mold.

You know what? I am so fucking pissed off right now I'm not even going to bother to respond to the rest of your horseshit. I am going to step away from the computer, smoke a cigarette and calm down.

Go fuck yourself.

[shemps#1]

Alright, I'm back. As I stated previously I am an "irreligious atheist"; meaning I do not belong to any religion nor do I believe in a higher power of any kind. Unless I am provoked I will not impose my beliefs (or lack thereof) to others who believe differently. The line I take umbrage with is "And just so we are clear, every person's body is not their own, but is the "property" of God alone", which you state as fact. If you are going to make such a bold statement and claim it to be absolute truth you better have concrete evidence to back it up. The fact of the matter is that there is no concrete evidence to back up those personal beliefs of yours, which is why they are called "personal beliefs" and not "factual statements". Perhaps you lack the English skills to articulate yourself correctly and did not mean to impose your beliefs on me and the billions of others who do not share your beliefs. You are quick to bring the Bible in what is a political and not a theological discussion. I counter your Bible with a letter written by one of, if not THE greatest President in US History: Thomas Jefferson.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

That of course is the famous Wall of Separation Letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association which became the foundation for the Separation of Church and State. It goes both ways: if the State cannot interfere with the Church then the inverse stands also. If you want to bring religion into the law then let's sic the IRS on your church and every other church out there.

Don't get me wrong: I am all for differing opinions, but when you state your beliefs as an absolute truth that I must adhere to you run afoul of me. There will be no green lettering and no blue quips, but consider this stanza your official warning. If you try to impose your belief system onto me again you will be gone.

[AmalgamatedMoron]

I strongly disagree that it does, and in fact the argument can be made from the Bible for just the opposite attitude:

Surely not saying that God was mistaken in these passages, are you?   

The point is that cannabis, or marijuana, is called "weed" for a reason - it grows damned near anywhere.  It has also been used for multiple purposes throughout the history of mankind, until elitist, racist busybodies in the 30's propagated deliberate lies about marijuana in order to get it illegally banned by the Federal government.   

Please point out any specific passages where pot smoking is declared a sin in the Bible and I'll gladly concede the point and admit that I am wrong, but I believe that you are seeing prohibitions where there are none.

In regards to your comments on government, I think you're dead wrong, but you'd hardly be the first Christian who is.  Please actually read that dissertation on Romans 13 that I linked to (and the Jesus Is An Anarchist article as well), and then we can discuss it.

I'm certainly not saying God is wrong in those passages of scripture.  What I am doing is disagreeing with your exegesis of those passages.  Without going into any great detail about the Genesis narrative, I would simply say that I believe your interpretation is strained at best, in suggesting those texts are implying that the "grass", and "herb yielding seed", is a reference to that which may be smoked in order to get high, rather than those being referenced as that which is to be eaten for sustenance and nutrition.  This is further corroborated by the reference to "fruit", "beasts", and "fowl".

As to the scripture references to smoking pot; there are none that explicitly address the issue.  But the Christian doctrine of Sola Scriptura states that not only that which is explicitly stated in scripture is the word of God, but that which by good and necessary implication can be deduced from scripture is also God's word.  My argument is that the Bible says that our bodies are not our own but belong to God (Psalm 50:10-12), that the Christian's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19,20), and Paul says a fruit of the Spirit is self control (Gal. 5:22,23).  I am not in control of my faculties if I am under the influence of drugs, or too much alcohol.  Therefore we ought not to abuse alcohol, or use drugs whose sole purpose is to get high ( I am of course not here considering the argument of those who want to make a case for marijuana's "medicinal" use, that is another issue entirely. Because I'm not saying that it has no use whatever).  Please bear in mind also, that I'm not necessarily arguing for the outlawing of marijuana, this is a different issue as well.

As for the articles you suggested, I will read the one about "Jesus the Anarchist" at get back to you on that one.  However, the other article has a broken link (the Romans 13 one).  If you can fix that, I will read it and offer a response.

[AmalgamatedMoron]

Don't you EVER try to force your theological dogma on me again. I am an irreligious atheist: that means I do not believe in the existence of any higher power, so there isn't any fucking "God" that owns me, "just so we're clear". I own my body, nobody or nothing else. How dare you....you have absolutely no fucking right to attempt to force your beliefs on me or fit me into your mold.

You know what? I am so fucking pissed off right now I'm not even going to bother to respond to the rest of your horseshit. I am going to step away from the computer, smoke a cigarette and calm down.

Go fuck yourself.

In what way did I "force" my dogma on you S#1.  I simply made an objective statement, relative to my worldview, concerning the ethical question of drug use, not a political one.  Are you faulting me for arguing from my worldview?  The very thing you are now doing, which is what I would expect you to do, and is what all people do everyday.  I didn't say what I did for the sheer sake of attempting to anger you, I was making an argument which stems from my worldview, which is obviously in stark disagreement with yours. 

But, why get so angry that I simply make a truth claim relative to my worldview?  Do I not have this freedom on this forum?  I have not personally attacked you, but made a statement based on an objective worldview.  My argument was not: "I personally determine right and wrong and will impose it upon you".  Rather, I have argued from Christian theism that objective morals exist, because God exists, and He is the one who has the sovereign right to impose law, not me. 

If you wish to argue against my worldview, then fine, but why does this have to get so personal, and why must you use such invectives as "fuck you"?  I do not understand why we cannot have a civil discussion, and disagree, even strongly so, and yet remain civil and kind to one another.  After all, we are here on this forum for one primary purpose, our shared love for the Stooges.  I would hate to lose my privileges here on this forum, given the fact that there are numerous other places where I could enter discussion (and often do) over political, philosophical, and theological debate. 

I thought I had the freedom to speak on this thread as well, and given all the talk about "freedom" to do this and that, what about allowing me freedom of speech?  Even if we strongly disagree.  Because, after all, I have not violated any of the sites rules, but have only disagreed with you over an issue that obviously can draw strong opinions and arguments.  But am I not allowed to have a differing view than your own? 

I apologize for angering you, that was certainly not my intention.  I am genuinely interested in civil, yet strong debate and disagreement.  After all, this often causes us to reexamine our beliefs and causes us to think on a deeper level, either to drive us further into our convictions, or to cause us to arrive at different conclusions.  And what's wrong with that?

Alright, I'm back. As I stated previously I am an "irreligious atheist"; meaning I do not belong to any religion nor do I believe in a higher power of any kind. Unless I am provoked I will not impose my beliefs (or lack thereof) to others who believe differently.

You are an atheist, okay, that's fine.  But I have to say that it's not an imposition of one's beliefs to simply state them, and argue from your worldview.  If your argument is true, then it would apply to that which you are doing as well.  Which is "imposing" your beliefs on me by telling me I am wrong.  This cuts both ways.  But to simply put forth a proposition, such as, "murder is immoral", and to say that the proposition is true, is not to "force" anything upon anyone, anymore than it would be an imposition to argue with a man who believes he can fly about the "law" of gravity.  Believe it or not.  Either it is true or not, on it's merit.  But if the man is wrong, about his ability to circumvent gravity, his belief to the contrary will do him no good when he jumps from a skyscraper.

The line I take umbrage with is "And just so we are clear, every person's body is not their own, but is the "property" of God alone", which you state as fact. If you are going to make such a bold statement and claim it to be absolute truth you better have concrete evidence to back it up. The fact of the matter is that there is no concrete evidence to back up those personal beliefs of yours, which is why they are called "personal beliefs" and not "factual statements". Perhaps you lack the English skills to articulate yourself correctly and did not mean to impose your beliefs on me and the billions of others who do not share your beliefs.

I can also just as easily say that there are no evidence to support the materialistic worldview you hold to.  But if you wish to debate that, then fine.  Perhaps we could do so in a civil manner.  Disagree over this amongst our shared passion for the Stooges.  Again, that's primarily why we're here.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

That of course is the famous Wall of Separation Letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association which became the foundation for the Separation of Church and State. It goes both ways: if the State cannot interfere with the Church then the inverse stands also. If you want to bring religion into the law then let's sic the IRS on your church and every other church out there.

Don't get me wrong: I am all for differing opinions, but when you state your beliefs as an absolute truth that I must adhere to you run afoul of me. There will be no green lettering and no blue quips, but consider this stanza your official warning. If you try to impose your belief system onto me again you will be gone.

Well, many things could be said about that letter.  I will simply say that I agree with the sentiment.  However, the idea was more to protect the churches from the tyranny of the government, rather than to tell the churches that they are not allowed into the arena of ideas and discussion.  Jefferson was a deist, and many things could be said of that, but I will leave that for another time and place.  As for "stating my beliefs as absolute truth", well of course I have, it is obvious that people equate their beliefs with truth, as corresponding to reality, otherwise we would have no rational reason to hold them.  Nowhere did I say you "must adhere to them".  I stated them as my beliefs, which yes, of course, I accept as truth.  You certainly have the "legal" freedom to disagree, and to hold to other propositions of a differing worldview.

[xraffle]

I hate to butt in on this, but I thought maybe I could make it clear why Shemps#1 got angry. It was because of this:

And just so we are clear, every person's body is not their own, but is the "property" of God alone. 

I'm a practicing Catholic myself and I found that statement rather shocking. I believe in God, but am I 100% certain that he exists? Well, the answer is no. I have absolutely no proof that he exists. It's all based on faith. That statement made it sound like our bodies is the property of God and only God. You made it sound as if it was all fact. Religion is all about faith, not fact. We can't prove God's existence and we never will.

[shemps#1]

In what way did I "force" my dogma on you S#1.  I simply made an objective statement, relative to my worldview, concerning the ethical question of drug use, not a political one.  Are you faulting me for arguing from my worldview?  The very thing you are now doing, which is what I would expect you to do, and is what all people do everyday.  I didn't say what I did for the sheer sake of attempting to anger you, I was making an argument which stems from my worldview, which is obviously in stark disagreement with yours. 

But, why get so angry that I simply make a truth claim relative to my worldview?  Do I not have this freedom on this forum?  I have not personally attacked you, but made a statement based on an objective worldview.  My argument was not: "I personally determine right and wrong and will impose it upon you".  Rather, I have argued from Christian theism that objective morals exist, because God exists, and He is the one who has the sovereign right to impose law, not me. 

If you wish to argue against my worldview, then fine, but why does this have to get so personal, and why must you use such invectives as "fuck you"?  I do not understand why we cannot have a civil discussion, and disagree, even strongly so, and yet remain civil and kind to one another.  After all, we are here on this forum for one primary purpose, our shared love for the Stooges.  I would hate to lose my privileges here on this forum, given the fact that there are numerous other places where I could enter discussion (and often do) over political, philosophical, and theological debate. 

I thought I had the freedom to speak on this thread as well, and given all the talk about "freedom" to do this and that, what about allowing me freedom of speech?  Even if we strongly disagree.  Because, after all, I have not violated any of the sites rules, but have only disagreed with you over an issue that obviously can draw strong opinions and arguments.  But am I not allowed to have a differing view than your own? 

I apologize for angering you, that was certainly not my intention.  I am genuinely interested in civil, yet strong debate and disagreement.  After all, this often causes us to reexamine our beliefs and causes us to think on a deeper level, either to drive us further into our convictions, or to cause us to arrive at different conclusions.  And what's wrong with that?

You are an atheist, okay, that's fine.  But I have to say that it's not an imposition of one's beliefs to simply state them, and argue from your worldview.  If your argument is true, then it would apply to that which you are doing as well.  Which is "imposing" your beliefs on me by telling me I am wrong.  This cuts both ways.  But to simply put forth a proposition, such as, "murder is immoral", and to say that the proposition is true, is not to "force" anything upon anyone, anymore than it would be an imposition to argue with a man who believes he can fly about the "law" of gravity.  Believe it or not.  Either it is true or not, on it's merit.  But if the man is wrong, about his ability to circumvent gravity, his belief to the contrary will do him no good when he jumps from a skyscraper.
 

I can also just as easily say that there are no evidence to support the materialistic worldview you hold to.  But if you wish to debate that, then fine.  Perhaps we could do so in a civil manner.  Disagree over this amongst our shared passion for the Stooges.  Again, that's primarily why we're here.



Well, many things could be said about that letter.  I will simply say that I agree with the sentiment.  However, the idea was more to protect the churches from the tyranny of the government, rather than to tell the churches that they are not allowed into the arena of ideas and discussion.  Jefferson was a deist, and many things could be said of that, but I will leave that for another time and place.

My reaction is from the point of view of someone who read your statement. You made the claim that someone/something other than myself owns my body: this claim is false. the only people who can claim ownership of my body are myself and any dominatrices that I may frequent. You see, it wasn't your stating a personal opinion that pissed me off, it was your stating an opinion or belief as a fact that we all abide by when it is definitely not the case.

Let's say I believe that Leprechauns exist (since I am of Irish descent) and are our overlords. We're having a discussion about something not related to Leprechauns whatsoever, you state that your soul belongs to "God" and not the United States government and I come in and say "Let's set the record straight: your soul belongs to Master Shamus and our Leprechaun Overlords, not this "God" of which you speak. Kiss the Shillelagh". You would think that I were out of my mind. Could you disprove my theory that Leprechauns are our overlords? No, but to you that would sound asinine.

When you are telling me that my body is not my own I have every right to get pissed off. You are more than entitled to espouse your personal beliefs, but when you attempt to fit them into my personal view ("Just so we're clear, your body is not your own but belongs to God") I will lash out at you. I am 100% for the Freedom of Speech (the only limitations being slander and libel), but the consequences of those freedoms are that other people have the right to say what they want as well...even if it's a "fuck you". Going back to the Leprechaun Overlords model for a minute, in your mind you may think "fuck this asshole, trying to tell me some "Master Shamus" owns my soul and not "God"..." the difference between you and I is that I will come out and say it to you, not just keep the thought to myself.

For you to "simply state" you beliefs it would have read something like this "just so we're clear it is my belief that a person's body belongs to God"...can you not see the difference between that and what you said? Your murder analogy does not hold water and I'll explain why. The vast majority of the population believes murder to be immoral, which is more than can be said for your dogmatic views. Even amongst other Christians you will find others who do not agree with your interpretation of the Christian dogma (Rob for instance).

As for your take on the Jefferson Letter, I'll steal your line and say that it "cuts both ways". Jefferson spoke of a "wall" dividing the two, not a "cage around the State where the Church can easily reach it when necessary".

[shemps#1]

I hate to butt in on this, but I thought maybe I could make it clear why Shemps#1 got angry. It was because of this:

I'm a practicing Catholic myself and I found that statement rather shocking. I believe in God, but am I 100% certain that he exists? Well, the answer is no. I have absolutely no proof that he exists. It's all based on faith. That statement made it sound like our bodies is the property of God and only God. You made it sound as if it was all fact. Religion is all about faith, not fact. We can't prove God's existence and we never will.

Give the man a Kewpie Doll!

Also, that statement can be considered proselytizing.

[AmalgamatedMoron]

I hate to butt in on this, but I thought maybe I could make it clear why Shemps#1 got angry. It was because of this:

I'm a practicing Catholic myself and I found that statement rather shocking. I believe in God, but am I 100% certain that he exists? Well, the answer is no. I have absolutely no proof that he exists. It's all based on faith. That statement made it sound like our bodies is the property of God and only God. You made it sound as if it was all fact. Religion is all about faith, not fact. We can't prove God's existence and we never will.

Well X, I couldn't disagree more.  You have no certainty that God exists?  Don't you, even as a Roman Catholic, accept scripture as divine revelation?  If so, then how is it that you claim to not know with certainty anything God proclaims in the Bible.  Why did God say through the Apostle John:

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.  (1 John 5:13)

Your definition of faith is hardly biblical either.  It fits more with a modern colloquial understanding, which is some sort of leap in the dark, rather than a firm belief based on the assurance of revelation, the only source of knowledge.  I assume your definition of "fact", as you place it in opposition to faith, is a belief you base on Empiricism?  Is this so?  Could you explain to me how you come to a knowledge of "facts", that you can demonstrate as true, through the use of your senses alone?  Just some food for thought my friend.

Paul

[AmalgamatedMoron]

My reaction is from the point of view of someone who read your statement. You made the claim that someone/something other than myself owns my body: this claim is false. the only people who can claim ownership of my body are myself and any dominatrices that I may frequent. You see, it wasn't your stating a personal opinion that pissed me off, it was your stating an opinion or belief as a fact that we all abide by when it is definitely not the case.

Don't you EVER try to force your theological dogma on me again. I am an irreligious atheist: that means I do not believe in the existence of any higher power, so there isn't any fucking "God" that owns me, "just so we're clear". I own my body, nobody or nothing else. How dare you....you have absolutely no fucking right to attempt to force your beliefs on me or fit me into your mold.

But you just made two dogmatic statements here, as fact .  Can you explain how you may do it, but I may not.  If you say it's the difference between stating a belief, and stating a fact, then that just begs the question.  For it assumes that which is yet to be demonstrated as true. I will say the same thing in response.  That is, my position is a fact, but, I can, and will, argue for it's truth--though I understand that you do not accept it as such-- but that is rather obvious.  Rather than get angry at someone for stating a proposition as being true, perhaps you should challenge them to demonstrate how it is true.  Which is perfectly legitimate.  The same I would do in asking you to defend and demonstrate how and why your position is true.   

Let's say I believe that Leprechauns exist (since I am of Irish descent) and are our overlords. We're having a discussion about something not related to Leprechauns whatsoever, you state that your soul belongs to "God" and not the United States government and I come in and say "Let's set the record straight: your soul belongs to Master Shamus and our Leprechaun Overlords, not this "God" of which you speak. Kiss the Shillelagh". You would think that I were out of my mind. Could you disprove my theory that Leprechauns are our overlords? No, but to you that would sound asinine.

Many things that we accept as fact often "sound asinine".  Hence the saying: "Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction".  The question isn't, does this sound strange, but, can one apply tests for truth to it, to see if it corresponds to reality?  Is it based on a worldview that is logically consistent, cogent, rational, and existentially relevant?  Yes, the Leprechaun theory sounds strange, and is probably false.  But to equate this with Christian theism is to mix apples and oranges.  For one is based on folklore and accepted as "myth" (at least I do not know anyone who accepts the literal, physical existence of Leprechauns, hence I'm not aware of any arguments offered for such notions), the other is a comprehensive, systematic, pro-active worldview, that touches on the most important and essential questions of our existence; causality, life, death, ethics, purpose, and destiny.  I understand your analogy here.  But I believe it is equivalent to the argument raised by Richard Dawkins and his "Flying Spaghetti Monster".  It reduces all theistic beliefs to the irrationality of the man who fashions an idol with his own hands, say from wood or stone, and then proceeds to worship and offer sacrifices to it.  But this hardly does justice to the rich philosophical history of Christianity's most intelligent and insightful minds, and to the serious and cogent arguments offered by Christianity's brightest theologians and philosophers.   

For you to "simply state" you beliefs it would have read something like this "just so we're clear it is my belief that a person's body belongs to God"...can you not see the difference between that and what you said? Your murder analogy does not hold water and I'll explain why. The vast majority of the population believes murder to be immoral, which is more than can be said for your dogmatic views. Even amongst other Christians you will find others who do not agree with your interpretation of the Christian dogma (Rob for instance).

If it will keep the peace in the future, I will gladly preface such statements with, "It is my belief".  Then we can argue whether or not it is true.  Or more broadly, which worldview withstands the scrutiny of philosophical and epistemological criticism, Christianity, or atheism.  As to my "murder analogy", I believe it still stands.  For we should not commit the fallacy of ad populum, that is, we do not arrive at truth by counting noses or by consensus.  I would argue that even if every person in the world agreed that murder is a morally acceptable act, it would still be wrong.   

As for your take on the Jefferson Letter, I'll steal your line and say that it "cuts both ways". Jefferson spoke of a "wall" dividing the two, not a "cage around the State where the Church can easily reach it when necessary".

If there is anything that is obvious to me about the Founding Fathers, it is that they were by and large, religious men.  They saw no "problem" with the inclusion of their theistic beliefs relative to the arguments they often made concerning governing the people.  For example, they based human dignity, freedom, and worth, on theistic assumptions.  However, that doesn't mean that the modern evangelicals, like the late D. James Kennedy, were right in their political positions.  For he was wrong on many issues, but correct on some.  As I have alluded to elsewhere, I accept a "two kingdom" theology, that is, in this dispensation, there is the secular world and government.  But that does not mean that Christians are not to be allowed to vote their conscious, or be allowed into discussion and debate over the issues that are most important to our current state of affairs.  Nor does it mean that when we do debate these issues, that the Christian must check his worldview at the door.

[shemps#1]

But you just made two statements here as fact .  Can you explain how you may do it, but I may not.  If you say it's the difference between stating a belief, and stating a fact, I will say the same thing in response.  That is, my position is a fact, and I can argue for it's truth--though I understand that you do not accept it as such-- but that is rather obvious.  Rather than get angry at someone for stating a proposition as being true, perhaps you should challenge them to demonstrate how it is true.  Which is perfectly legitimate.  The same I would do in asking you to defend and demonstrate how and why your position is true.   

Many things that we accept as fact often "sound asinine".  Hence the saying: "Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction".  The question isn't, does this sound strange, but, can one apply tests for truth to it, to see if it corresponds to reality?  Is it based on a worldview that is logically consistent, cogent, rational, and existentially relevant?  Yes, the Leprechaun theory sounds strange, and is probably false.  But to equate this with Christian theism is to mix apples and oranges.  For one is based on folklore and accepted as "myth" (at least I do not know anyone who accepts the literal, physical existence of Leprechauns, hence I'm not aware of any arguments offered for such notions), the other is a comprehensive, systematic, pro-active worldview, that touches on the most important and essential questions of our existence; causality, life, death, ethics, purpose, and destiny.  I understand your analogy here.  But I believe it is equivalent to the argument raised by Richard Dawkins and his "Flying Spaghetti Monster".  It reduces all theistic beliefs to the irrationality of the man who fashions an idol with his own hands, say from wood or stone, and then proceeds to worship and offers sacrifices to it.  But this hardly does justice to the rich philosophical history of Christianity's most intelligent and insightful minds, and to the serious and cogent arguments offered by Christianity's brightest theologians and philosophers.   

If it will keep the peace in the future, I will gladly preface such statements with, "It is my belief".  Then we can argue whether or not it is true.  Or more broadly, which worldview withstands the scrutiny of philosophical and epistemological criticism, Christianity, or atheism.  As to my "murder analogy", I believe it still stands.  For we should not commit the fallacy of ad populum, that is, we do not arrive at truth by counting noses or by consensus.  I would argue that even if every person in the world agreed that murder is a morally acceptable act, it would still be wrong.   

If there is anything that is obvious to me about the Founding Fathers, it is that they were by and large, religious men.  They saw no "problem" with the inclusion of their theistic beliefs relative to the arguments they often made concerning governing the people.  For example, they based human dignity, freedom, and worth, on theistic assumptions.  However, that doesn't mean that the modern evangelicals, like the late D. James Kennedy, were right in their political positions.  For he was wrong on many issues, but correct on some.  As I have alluded to elsewhere, I accept a "two kingdom" theology, that is, in this dispensation, there is the secular world and government.  But that does not mean that Christians are not to be allowed to vote their conscious, or be allowed into discussion and debate over the issues that are most important to our current state of affairs.  Nor does it mean that when we do debate these issues, that the Christian must check his worldview at the door.

Fair enough. First of all, the law states that when I reached the age of majority I became responsible for my own actions. When I was 22 years old I got my first tattoo, and when I was 28 I got my second tattoo. If I had tried to do so before the age of 18 I would have needed not permission from some creator god but from my parents. Since I was over 18 at the time the signature I needed on the release was my own. That is just one small but concrete example of how my parents owned my body until I hit the age of majority, which when hit I then became sole proprietor. Is it an innocuous example? Perhaps, but the law and my tattoos are more evidence than what you have that "God" owns it.

Secondly, if I knew exactly where you lived and cared to, I could arrive at your house, knock on your door, and present to you all of my papers. Could your "God" knock on my door and say "hey there I'm God, I created you and I own you...now I'm going to remove your tattoos with my finger because I don't want you marking up what's mine, and stop going to the dominatrices, I own them too"? Absolutely not.

Thirdly, we're talking about me personally. When talking about the physical body of James Kane (or the metaphysical) my beliefs trump yours as the truth. If I say that I own my body then I do. If you say that a creator owns your personal body then it does. Until you can bring forth concrete evidence that your "God" exists and owns me, I will continue to state the contrary. Until you prove otherwise you cannot say anything different where I am concerned and you really have no right to.

I am an irreligious atheist: that means I do not believe in the existence of any higher power, so there isn't any fucking "God" that owns me, "just so we're clear". I own my body, nobody or nothing else.

The above statement was made out of anger in response to your statement. As for the dominatrices, I pay them to take ownership of my body for a period of time (or I would if I could find one, in a role playing type scenario).  Usually I would have prefaced that to clarify that it is my belief because I can no more disprove the existence of a creator than you can prove it. Your brazen attitude pissed me off, however.

To YOU it is apples and oranges to equate Christianity to Leprechaun Overlords. I used something as asinine and ridiculous as Leprechaun Overlords for a reason, because to ME Christianity is just as asinine and ridiculous sounding. That is also why Dawkins used the Spaghetti Monster...the idea that the Earth was created 6000 years ago by some bearded old man in the sky (or metaphysical power) who also impregnated some chick miraculously without sticking his cock in her (thus defying the laws of biology) and the resulting kid walked on water, healed with his touch and magically turned water into wine has as much merit to me as Master Shamus and his shillelagh. You can no more disprove the Leprechaun Overlords than you can any other religion or atheism.

You could say Christianity has more followers than my Leprechaun Overlords theory, and you'd be right. That, however does not make it true. "For we should not commit the fallacy of ad populum, that is, we do not arrive at truth by counting noses or by consensus." Correct?

It doesn't matter what the religious inclinations of Jefferson or the other Framers were, and that is the whole point of the Wall of Separation letter. If we allow religion into politics that majority religion will rule and oppress the minorities. There would be an "official religion" and those who believed otherwise would be chastised. The evidence? Look at Spain and Britain during those times. That was the reason why this country was founded in the first place, to escape religious oppression. Look at Nazi Germany: the official religion was no religion (or an unnamed religion based around a master race) and the minorities were persecuted. The Separation of Church and State must be kept firm and strong for those reasons.

To sum it all up, what you have is faith: and more power to you. Faith does not equal evidence however, and until you can bring me concrete evidence that is contrary to what I believe for myself you cannot state otherwise when it comes to my person. I certainly would not state otherwise when it comes to you (unless provoked...don't poke the hibernating bear).

[Dunrobin]

As for the articles you suggested, I will read the one about "Jesus the Anarchist" at get back to you on that one.  However, the other article has a broken link (the Romans 13 one).  If you can fix that, I will read it and offer a response.

I fixed the link for the Romans 13 dissertation in my post, above, and (of course) I've provided it here as well.