Correcting grammar is intolerable even if you could get it right 100% of the time.

When it's as terrible as yours, you just look stupid.

*Facepalm* Even the use of 'free state' has multiple possible interpretations depending on historical context and intent. Fact is that the original intent of the clause is now very difficult to interpret. As is the question of whether or not it has any relevance to the modern world - things have changed dramatically since it was written.

I absolutely love the juxtiposition here of supporting one ancient text while slagging off another. Since you seem to have the grasp of the average internet child when it comes to religious texts I'd like to inform you that there is far more to the story of "Bible bad! Religion evil! Me smoooort for seeing!" I'm vehemently opposed to modern religion yet it's plain that you simply havn't got the understanding or basic knowledge of history to know why you should oppose it.

It is fundamentally wrong to say that the bible and religion always held back advancement. Indeed religion can be argued to be the first step towards science because it does the key thing of trying to explain the unexplained. The way in which it does this and has been used is, in many cases, awful. However with that said if it were not for the institutions that grew around the bible then we would have lost our entire base of knowledge several times in history - during the dark ages it was the monks and Islamic scholars that preserved pretty much everything we knew up to that point.

Seriously, history is far more interesting than they make it look in school. You should try it.

About as mature as using a spelling error to undermine an argument...

*Pssst* Spelling is not a grammar error. Definitions nigga, do you understand them?

It also undermines the point somewhat when your corrections of 'grammar' are riddled with errors...

Correcting grammar is intolerable even if you could get it right 100% of the time.

When it's as terrible as yours, you just look stupid.

Sorry, the content is of equal quality of the site. It has the second amendment and then instantly say "Anyone that knows english knows that it means my interpretation of it."No information as to context, no historical analysis. Oppinion sandiwched by oppnion presented as fact. In short, an utterly laughable source - you would have been better off posting a finger painting.

It closed the door on research did it? Really? Think about that for a second and then feel suitably ashamed at how silly you look. It was a solid, quick fix in a time where the concept of bacteria was less convincing than the idea of a Deity caring about what people do.

And just to wind you up: relevence, relevence, ralevence, relevEnce.

*Facepalm* Even the use of 'free state' has multiple possible interpretations depending on historical context and intent. Fact is that the original intent of the clause is now very difficult to interpret. As is the question of whether or not it has any relevance to the modern world - things have changed dramatically since it was written.

I absolutely love the juxtiposition here of supporting one ancient text while slagging off another. Since you seem to have the grasp of the average internet child when it comes to religious texts I'd like to inform you that there is far more to the story of "Bible bad! Religion evil! Me smoooort for seeing!" I'm vehemently opposed to modern religion yet it's plain that you simply havn't got the understanding or basic knowledge of history to know why you should oppose it.

It is fundamentally wrong to say that the bible and religion always held back advancement. Indeed religion can be argued to be the first step towards science because it does the key thing of trying to explain the unexplained. The way in which it does this and has been used is, in many cases, awful. However with that said if it were not for the institutions that grew around the bible then we would have lost our entire base of knowledge several times in history - during the dark ages it was the monks and Islamic scholars that preserved pretty much everything we knew up to that point.

Seriously, history is far more interesting than they make it look in school. You should try it.

About as mature as using a spelling error to undermine an argument...

A tripod website. What a fantastic source...oh wait.

The whole point about the 'Pigs are dirty and God says not to eat them' was that they had no clue why it was making them ill, just that it was. In a culture where deities are a thing it's far easier to convince them not to eat pork by saying God doesn't like it than to try and convince them that it is actually the meat thats bad - plus the fact that for all the ones in charge new it WAS that their God didn't like it. That belief then directly helps to prevent people from dying. Relevence.

Honestly, being able to pick out the flaws in the bible is nice and easy and lets you think you're cool. Understanding why certain things are in there and how they helped at the time is much more interesting, but alas requires actual thought. Most rational people that accept that the bible is mostly hocum still acknowledge that it had significance, and yes, relevence in the past. It's just that today we have a far greater understanding and a more analytical approach to the world.

*Pssst* Spelling is not a grammar error. Definitions nigga, do you understand them?

It also undermines the point somewhat when your corrections of 'grammar' are riddled with errors...

Correcting grammar is intolerable even if you could get it right 100% of the time.

When it's as terrible as yours, you just look stupid.

Sorry, the content is of equal quality of the site. It has the second amendment and then instantly say "Anyone that knows english knows that it means my interpretation of it."No information as to context, no historical analysis. Oppinion sandiwched by oppnion presented as fact. In short, an utterly laughable source - you would have been better off posting a finger painting.

It closed the door on research did it? Really? Think about that for a second and then feel suitably ashamed at how silly you look. It was a solid, quick fix in a time where the concept of bacteria was less convincing than the idea of a Deity caring about what people do.

And just to wind you up: relevence, relevence, ralevence, relevEnce.

*Facepalm* Even the use of 'free state' has multiple possible interpretations depending on historical context and intent. Fact is that the original intent of the clause is now very difficult to interpret. As is the question of whether or not it has any relevance to the modern world - things have changed dramatically since it was written.

I absolutely love the juxtiposition here of supporting one ancient text while slagging off another. Since you seem to have the grasp of the average internet child when it comes to religious texts I'd like to inform you that there is far more to the story of "Bible bad! Religion evil! Me smoooort for seeing!" I'm vehemently opposed to modern religion yet it's plain that you simply havn't got the understanding or basic knowledge of history to know why you should oppose it.

It is fundamentally wrong to say that the bible and religion always held back advancement. Indeed religion can be argued to be the first step towards science because it does the key thing of trying to explain the unexplained. The way in which it does this and has been used is, in many cases, awful. However with that said if it were not for the institutions that grew around the bible then we would have lost our entire base of knowledge several times in history - during the dark ages it was the monks and Islamic scholars that preserved pretty much everything we knew up to that point.

Seriously, history is far more interesting than they make it look in school. You should try it.

About as mature as using a spelling error to undermine an argument...

Actually the 2nd amendment has more to do with opposition to external powers. Back then there was no real formal military which meant that without 'a well regulated militia' they would be incredibly vulnerable to foreign powers. The interpretation of it being to ward off a facist government is a fairly new one - not quite as new as branding God on everything, which funnily enough ought to be considered unconstitutional what with America being the only country ever founded specifically independant from any religion. There's also the fact that it makies no sense in the modern day. Back then if you picked up a musket you were on equal footing with most of the theorised tyranny, nowadays if a facist government managed to take over that actually warrented the use of force to remove they would simply laugh at a few civilians with guns and start fire-bombing areas to send a message.

The bible did actually have some relevence back then with organising people and things such as banning the consumption of certain foods (Because they were riddled with diseases but it's saying the scary sky-wizard doesn't like it also works.) Just like the ideas of equality and liberty are great - not being allowed to implement laws proven to protect people because of a 300 year old document, bad.

A tripod website. What a fantastic source...oh wait.

The whole point about the 'Pigs are dirty and God says not to eat them' was that they had no clue why it was making them ill, just that it was. In a culture where deities are a thing it's far easier to convince them not to eat pork by saying God doesn't like it than to try and convince them that it is actually the meat thats bad - plus the fact that for all the ones in charge new it WAS that their God didn't like it. That belief then directly helps to prevent people from dying. Relevence.

Honestly, being able to pick out the flaws in the bible is nice and easy and lets you think you're cool. Understanding why certain things are in there and how they helped at the time is much more interesting, but alas requires actual thought. Most rational people that accept that the bible is mostly hocum still acknowledge that it had significance, and yes, relevence in the past. It's just that today we have a far greater understanding and a more analytical approach to the world.

*Pssst* Spelling is not a grammar error. Definitions nigga, do you understand them?

It also undermines the point somewhat when your corrections of 'grammar' are riddled with errors...

Correcting grammar is intolerable even if you could get it right 100% of the time.

When it's as terrible as yours, you just look stupid.

Sorry, the content is of equal quality of the site. It has the second amendment and then instantly say "Anyone that knows english knows that it means my interpretation of it."No information as to context, no historical analysis. Oppinion sandiwched by oppnion presented as fact. In short, an utterly laughable source - you would have been better off posting a finger painting.

It closed the door on research did it? Really? Think about that for a second and then feel suitably ashamed at how silly you look. It was a solid, quick fix in a time where the concept of bacteria was less convincing than the idea of a Deity caring about what people do.

And just to wind you up: relevence, relevence, ralevence, relevEnce.

*Facepalm* Even the use of 'free state' has multiple possible interpretations depending on historical context and intent. Fact is that the original intent of the clause is now very difficult to interpret. As is the question of whether or not it has any relevance to the modern world - things have changed dramatically since it was written.

I absolutely love the juxtiposition here of supporting one ancient text while slagging off another. Since you seem to have the grasp of the average internet child when it comes to religious texts I'd like to inform you that there is far more to the story of "Bible bad! Religion evil! Me smoooort for seeing!" I'm vehemently opposed to modern religion yet it's plain that you simply havn't got the understanding or basic knowledge of history to know why you should oppose it.

It is fundamentally wrong to say that the bible and religion always held back advancement. Indeed religion can be argued to be the first step towards science because it does the key thing of trying to explain the unexplained. The way in which it does this and has been used is, in many cases, awful. However with that said if it were not for the institutions that grew around the bible then we would have lost our entire base of knowledge several times in history - during the dark ages it was the monks and Islamic scholars that preserved pretty much everything we knew up to that point.

Seriously, history is far more interesting than they make it look in school. You should try it.

About as mature as using a spelling error to undermine an argument...

the reason it is in the constitution is for protection from native american tribesman and other invaders during Americas dangerous past, it has no purpose today

That isn't even vaguely why the Nazi party managed to do what they did. Honestly even rudimentary knowledge of Germanys history should make that plainly obvious.

And I would argue that the Bible is about as relevent to the modern world as the constitution is: They both have sensible core principles but trying to apply them directly (As is currently the case) when the world has moved on so dramatically is, at best, misguided and at worst simply retarded. The whole thing needs reevaluating and rewriting - as it was originally supposed to be every 20 years, rather than the current trend of going "It's the constitution, it is utterly infallible and we will make it a pain in the ass beyond belief to edit any little bit of it.".

Actually the 2nd amendment has more to do with opposition to external powers. Back then there was no real formal military which meant that without 'a well regulated militia' they would be incredibly vulnerable to foreign powers. The interpretation of it being to ward off a facist government is a fairly new one - not quite as new as branding God on everything, which funnily enough ought to be considered unconstitutional what with America being the only country ever founded specifically independant from any religion. There's also the fact that it makies no sense in the modern day. Back then if you picked up a musket you were on equal footing with most of the theorised tyranny, nowadays if a facist government managed to take over that actually warrented the use of force to remove they would simply laugh at a few civilians with guns and start fire-bombing areas to send a message.

The bible did actually have some relevence back then with organising people and things such as banning the consumption of certain foods (Because they were riddled with diseases but it's saying the scary sky-wizard doesn't like it also works.) Just like the ideas of equality and liberty are great - not being allowed to implement laws proven to protect people because of a 300 year old document, bad.

A tripod website. What a fantastic source...oh wait.

The whole point about the 'Pigs are dirty and God says not to eat them' was that they had no clue why it was making them ill, just that it was. In a culture where deities are a thing it's far easier to convince them not to eat pork by saying God doesn't like it than to try and convince them that it is actually the meat thats bad - plus the fact that for all the ones in charge new it WAS that their God didn't like it. That belief then directly helps to prevent people from dying. Relevence.

Honestly, being able to pick out the flaws in the bible is nice and easy and lets you think you're cool. Understanding why certain things are in there and how they helped at the time is much more interesting, but alas requires actual thought. Most rational people that accept that the bible is mostly hocum still acknowledge that it had significance, and yes, relevence in the past. It's just that today we have a far greater understanding and a more analytical approach to the world.

*Pssst* Spelling is not a grammar error. Definitions nigga, do you understand them?

It also undermines the point somewhat when your corrections of 'grammar' are riddled with errors...

Correcting grammar is intolerable even if you could get it right 100% of the time.

When it's as terrible as yours, you just look stupid.

Sorry, the content is of equal quality of the site. It has the second amendment and then instantly say "Anyone that knows english knows that it means my interpretation of it."No information as to context, no historical analysis. Oppinion sandiwched by oppnion presented as fact. In short, an utterly laughable source - you would have been better off posting a finger painting.

It closed the door on research did it? Really? Think about that for a second and then feel suitably ashamed at how silly you look. It was a solid, quick fix in a time where the concept of bacteria was less convincing than the idea of a Deity caring about what people do.

And just to wind you up: relevence, relevence, ralevence, relevEnce.

*Facepalm* Even the use of 'free state' has multiple possible interpretations depending on historical context and intent. Fact is that the original intent of the clause is now very difficult to interpret. As is the question of whether or not it has any relevance to the modern world - things have changed dramatically since it was written.

I absolutely love the juxtiposition here of supporting one ancient text while slagging off another. Since you seem to have the grasp of the average internet child when it comes to religious texts I'd like to inform you that there is far more to the story of "Bible bad! Religion evil! Me smoooort for seeing!" I'm vehemently opposed to modern religion yet it's plain that you simply havn't got the understanding or basic knowledge of history to know why you should oppose it.

It is fundamentally wrong to say that the bible and religion always held back advancement. Indeed religion can be argued to be the first step towards science because it does the key thing of trying to explain the unexplained. The way in which it does this and has been used is, in many cases, awful. However with that said if it were not for the institutions that grew around the bible then we would have lost our entire base of knowledge several times in history - during the dark ages it was the monks and Islamic scholars that preserved pretty much everything we knew up to that point.

Seriously, history is far more interesting than they make it look in school. You should try it.

About as mature as using a spelling error to undermine an argument...