According to a Pew Research Survey, 49% of Conservative Republicans think that the bible should be a more important source than the will of the people for US law. 43% of Conservative Republicans disagreed.

Easy to interpret graph: http://people-press.org/reports/images/287-5.gif

Full article: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=153

Also Republicans tend to think a decrease in religion's influence in public policy is a bad thing, and an increase is a good thing.

Easy to interpret graph: http://people-press.org/reports/images/287-7.gif

Full article: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=153

So as he said, the conservatives who do not like religious influence in public policy are in the minority.

True, but they never went so far as to require kids be indoctrinated as Christians, which many current conservatives wouldn't be opposed to.

I was referring to "Representative Democracy", not "Direct/Pure Democracy", which can be more unstable.

But I agree, that the US was also founded on principles of a Republic, but those principles are not mutually exclusive with a Democracy. From Wikipedia, "Democracy is a form of government in which power is held indirectly by citizens in a free electoral system." That certainly fits the government outlined in the Constitution.

Please read my post more carefully.

JakeJ said the country is founded on the "principles of Christianity". Since the ten commandments are obviously integral to Christian's principles, JakeJ is effectively saying the country is founded (at least in part) on the ten commandments (and I mean all of them, not just the ones that coincide with current law, like thou shall not kill, steal, etc).

Since you're clearly aware that the US has a secular Constitution and a Bill of Rights, it's clear you agree with me. I'm not sure why you're opposing me here, since we seem to be agreeing that the US is not founded on the ten commandments.

I'm well aware of what a horrible person Stalin was. However, I still don't believe our support of slightly less evil people is justified. The Soviet Union collapsed because of an arms race with the U.S.. Not because we "boycotted" Cuba, supported Saddam, or lost thousands of soldiers in Vietnam.

1. I don't make sense when I make sense of your nonsense. I'm saying that instead of "protecting" a fetus, which is not the state's property (and so not the state's responsibility), we should be getting people out of homeless shelters and ghettos, drug addicted bums off of the streets, and giving them a job or otherwise making these citizens of the state useful. Most of the people I meet from these places are addicted to something illegal, and they suffer for it, but also everyone around them suffers too. Many of the people I know hustle for a living, which means they create a commune in a household, they steal things that belong to the people around them, and sell/barter with these stolen things for drugs and extra cash. Some of them have food stamps that pay for everyone under the roof.

Some of these people could be redeemed instead of incarcerated as they are already good people stuck in a tough situation. Some are mentally ill, sure, but these people are in a sense, societies debts. Whether they are on the street, stealing, or in a prison, they are costing citizens pain and hardship. Now, this is what I mean by taking care of or protecting good grown people. Rather than being conservative by forcing people to spit out more children, doesn't it make more sense to help the ones that are already here!? CONSERVATIVES CONSERVE. Take what people we have now and help them out. It would cost less over an 18 year period and would increase our state's capital if they are successfully redeemed.

2. Right, they were babies and now they're tainted and there's no way to treat them like people anymore, I get your point. That doesn't mean I agree. People usually "chose" evil because they have to given their situation.

3. No.

lol

Completely agree. Animals don't have the same types of souls people have. This goes back to Aristotle. All life has nutritive souls (grow and thrive). All animals have sensitive souls (feel and interact). And all humans have rational souls (think).

And killing an innocent baby is SO wrong! Especially when they argue that killing a guilty murderer is wrong! It just doesn't make sense. Basically, they're saying "kill the innocent and save the guilty."

But to the main point of my reply: I like how of all the animals, you chose a rabbit, which just so happens to conveniently be Cerin's picture! :D nice one. haha

Does a woman with pregnancy complications deserve to die? Does a woman who gets raped deserve to care for the rapists child for the rest of her life?

I definitely believe abortion should be avoided when possible, but it should always be an option. Ultimately it's the woman's life, not yours, that the decision effects, so it should be their choice, not yours.

I'm also glad you enjoy killing rabbits. I hear they go well with pancakes.

"Abortion is viewed as killing a baby that just happens to still be in the womb a sort of equivalent to beating a toddler to death."

Maybe that is how you want to view it, but that isn't the case. I'll agree that killing an 8th month old is basically killing a baby that is in the womb, but I doubt you could find many pro-choice advocates who don't want to set a time limit.

Killing a bunch of cells that are not conscious is not killing a human. An adult fly is more complex than a human fetus for awhile.

"The goal is...to remove criminals from society permanently to protect the rest of the citizenry."

But how is that not accomplished by life in prison?

Abortion is often used to protect the health of the mother, whose life might be at risk if the pregnancy was brought to term. It's also used to counter rape and incest, where birthing and caring for the child would be psychological torture for the mother. I think abortion should be a last resort, and not used for general birth control, but still legal and safe.

I'd agree with you on capital punishment if I had confidence our justice system was perfect. Unfortunately, courts make mistakes, and executing someone is quite permanent. If you're concerned about protecting society from un-reformable criminals, then life sentences are more than adequate, since the whole idea is that they're never released from jail. Pursuing death sentence convictions in court are ultimately much more expensive than a life sentence.