"From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

Government must be cut

And the question has been answered, government must be cut down to fit the purpose it has been given by the constitution. It must be governed by law and govern (strictly) with law.

Government is not our salvation

You say we are where we are because of government, and I agree. Our government is somewhere around 13 trillion dollars in debt... our immigration system is so broken that my cousin who was adopted at 1 from Liberia did not get his visa till age 22 (one out of thousands of cases of neglect... if not millions)... despite the public outcry the government has passed bill after bill that primarily gives to them and not the people... taxes are just about as high as they have ever been. Government is a brute force, it has its place, but that place is not in the "china shop" of our indelible rights as the American people.

You say women are smarter then men... this is a generality... I know a lot of really smart men and I know a lot of really smart women and vis versa... your point is not quantifiable. Your argument makes it sound like your wining about the oppression of women, when woman have had power throughout history.

Ok so my reasoning is this; humanity is created by god in the image of God, and is sacred, so when you take your life you are taking that which is sacred.

Btw... if the bible is true then, suicide is wrong... you must first prove the Bible to be wrong before you can establish the ludicrous of one being dependent upon it.

No! No more politics as usual! I want someone in office who will push for less government, more freedom for the people, less taxation, humbly take up the office of President, someone who is invested in this country personally (i.e. John Boehner, he was crying because of his elevation to speaker, he has a heart for this country and it shows). President Obama will always hold my respect but I do not want him in the white house again.

Ok, I get that, after looking at the text of the bill for a while that is absolutely the spirit of this bill... not passing this bill is by no means punishing the children here illegally, though... for example if a parent is in the store and a child wants a twenty dollar box of chocolates, if the parent says no is it because perhaps the baby was born out of wedlock? absolutely not... if we deny people here illegally millions and maybe billions of dollars in college funds we are by no means punishing them... we're just not plundering the pockets of Americans for people who aren't even here legally... this bill is just messed up.

Ok, firstly, thank you! for supporting your points. Really though I haft to ask, did you just google what you were saying and find these verses or what? cause they are miles out of context.

'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.' (Leviticus 25:44)

Ok... so this is the old testament... completely different from what we have in the way of laws that God wants fallowed today (concerning this particular verse). what we have here is a classic example of the law of that day... the people of God were the good guys and everybody else was bad... you'll haft to forgive the literary crudity of the last statement but that is the easiest way to understand it. With the death of Christ however, everyone has equal opportunity to to be a child of God. so this no longer applies... in the new testament you see some "hows" when it comes to slaves but no endorsement of slavery.

'I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man.' (I Corinthians 11:3)

Firstly you should have put it like: ...'I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man... becuase this passage says a lot more then just that.

This passage is a letter from Paul (one of the apostles)... it was written to the church in the city of Corenth, his point is that man was created by God from nothing in Gods image, but woman was created from man (the rib of man).

and in this same passage paul says " ...and because of the angels, aught to have a sign of authority on here head"

and "...in the lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman..."

the passage is setting the roles of Christian men and woman... specifically as it partaines to prayer... not setting man as the subjugator of woman.

'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death.' (Leviticus 20:13)

Firstly, back then there was a huge problem with homosexuality amongst the Jews who were Gods people. Now this is speaking about the jews in the old testament, saying that this is the law concerning homosexuality... so it doesn't pertain to the gentiles or non Jews... and nowadays after Christs death all are under a new law... a law of grace.

'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' (Leviticus 20:9) again... Leviticus... old testament... law to the jews... there is a new law and this is no longer the the law under which man is subject.

Genocide: the Flood, the murder of the firstborns of Egypt, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

Ok so... one big difference we see here is that God allowed the and caused the flood and the angel of death in Egypt, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, But! when it comes to humans he says a plethora of things saying " thow shalt not murder"... in the new and old testament.

Killing your children: quote given in "death penalty for swearing at your parents"

I assume your talking about in exiguous where the bible says "'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head."

if so, then once again we have an argument from old testament... a time when the law of grace was not...

'If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.' (Leviticus 20:10)

Same argument I made before.... old testament...

The reason I make the argument's I have is not because I don't except those sections of the Bible, but because I wholeheartedly except the the whole bible! and because of this I know that There is the law of grace that has been given by God.

God isn't the perfectly friendly loving father that he is usually portrayed as.

One must understand that love and perfection don't necessarily equivocate a fuzy cudly being. As to perfection however, now that is an entirely different case... firstly one must understand that "no one is righteous, not even one" (Romans 3:10)... and if your one of those people who needs to see it for yourself, turn on the tele... get to know the people around you and you will find this out for yourself... no one is utterly without fault... its a fact. However God is (Is 6:3,Ps 16:2), he is absolutely perfect.

The Bible endorses slavery, the subjugation of women, the death penalty for all sorts of crimes from homosexuality to swearing at your parents, genocide, and plenty of other actions the modern person would find rather dubious.

Show me where in the church such things have been endorsed and done... easy right? now show me where in the old testament those things are endorsed... then show me where in the new testament those things are endorsed... then we have a functional basis for debate... but until then this argument is your own bogus claim(proov me wrong with ev. btw if you actually do do the work to back up your points whith a shred of evidence you can just put the tags for your ev and links/verses down, you don't need to write out the whole thing.

Naturally, most modern Christians balk at this, so they say, "No, God isn't telling you to kill your children or execute adulterers and homosexuals. He just means this and that and all those other nice, harmless things."

once again produce the ev and then we have a debate... if your going to attack a book like the bible you at least need to show that you have a little bit of an idea of what your actually talking about... Quantify, please!

So when God says that he abhorred homosexuals, isn't that what a Bible-believing Christian must accept?

So here is what the fact of the matter is:

(20:13 Romans 1:27, 32 B).

We see that Those commuting Homosexuality are said to be unfit to inherit the kingdom of God

(1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Timothy 1:10)

Homosexuality is an abomination to God.

(Leviticus 18:22, 24)

The sin is self-defiling

(Romans 1:27, 31; 2 Timothy 3:3)

It is unnatural

(1 Timothy 1:10)

Encouraging this way of life is not right

(1 Corinthians 6:9, 11)

Christians should not do this

(Romans 1:24, 26-32 Ephesians 4:17-19)

Because of this is sin and people continue in it God gives them up

(1 Corinthians 6:11, 9-10)

There is a way out, one can be free of the sin of Homosexuality.

So that is what the bible says... and btw those going to hell, I'm afraid are not limited to Homosexuals, so In conclusion, If God hated Homosexuals he would have not provided a way out of their sin, despite their rejection of him and his commands. So no! God doesn't hate "fags" he loves them so much that he sent his son to die specifically for them that they might not die (eternally) but be free of sin and have eternal life. (John 3:16)

I don't disagree with you on the fact that religion has been the basis of many a bloody war (and a lot of it is just plain unjustifiable!) . . . but do you really think that if everyone were atheists it would be that much more peaceful?

Just look at the Stalinist regimes... the attempt for a "utopia", there is an estimated 250 million people dead (between 1900-1987) because of those ideas. The Stalinist Purges were the cause 61 million dead and Mao's Cultural Revolution ended up resulting in 70 million casualties because of atheistic ideals. Also if you look at china, you see atheists killing Christians and even atheists.

So how in the world do you come up with the idea that "Get rid of it and 99.9%"... where is your proof for that? . . . look at the evidence, people fight, whether atheist, religious... ect, ect, what have you . . . its a well known fact.

No these perfume adverts are not safe for children... children are bombarded with this bs on the television all to often now... when people put this stuff on the tv they rob them of their innocents and inject them with ideas of sexual intimacy at an age that is way to young... it is a marketing technique... I am well aware of that, but marketers are marketing a product to an older crowd so they should put their stuff on adult films/shows/clips (whatever) solely... it is just plain inappropriate to haft to have children subject to this stuff... for example, this stuff comes on after sports games sometimes... kids love sports!... adult commercials should go with adult material solely if at all.

sorry... that's my rant of the day

There is a difference between invasion and immigration. The original Europeans that came here were illegal in the sense of a literal invading militia, They were immigrates in the sense that they traveled to another place. Another country's rebel militia coming onto your land are illegal immigrants when they wish to stay there.

The pilgrims weren't invaders, and they weren't a militia... they were a whole bunch of people who came to a new land to be free of the tyranny and oppression of the times... did they create a militia... uh yeah who wouldn't?... and as for what is legal and illegal... to my recollection, legality is based on what is lawful/established law... so before making the argument that the pilgrims were illegal immigrants (being that I disagree) I would ask that you establish any law that prohibited them from entering and establishing civilization in the Americas (I believe I have clearly done this when speaking of current latino illegal immigrants).

I'm sure there was recreational drug use then(alcohol and tobacco at least) and herbal remedies can get you high.

I'm sure there was... but for a people fleeing a country to gain religious freedom, and coming to a new land with illnesses at their doorstep... the probability of these remedies being used as recreational drugs is pretty low... on the other hand, you put a phew oz's of cock in a users possession it will be used for "recreational" purposes (if used).

I was speaking of the early European immigrants to this country.

Pilgrims, correct? if not than ^^ is out of line and I apologies in advance... if your talking about columbus' men then that is a completely different (in some ways) than the pilgrims.

new argument

Dream Act = no real solvency

This law is not the way to go, not because there are kids who need an education, but because it is in direct opposition to current law, "a house divided against itself will fall" ( this is the bible, but there is practical application here, its math, its common knowledge)... if the government wants to do this, they need to re-establish immigration law and remove illegal immigration... this law is the same as putting a pot in a pot to put in check the water leaking into a house, the govt rejected this bill today (good for them)... because the people of the U.S. know this is not good and bombarded the senate with their calls (shout out to you who called, let t)