Is Voting...

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

I think it's a right, but i also think democracy isn't the best system of government either.

After voting I would like you to elaborate on your choice.

[hitekredneck]

I think it's a right, but i also think democracy isn't the best system of government either.

After voting I would like you to elaborate on your choice.

voting is both a privelidge and a duty...i agree with you on democracy, that's why i'm thankful we use a representative republic...i feel its democracy at it's finest, as it tries to ensure that all peoples are represented at some level

[Eruption]

I wonder why people think we live in a democracy? :( They act all smart and then never research our government -- yet refuse to stop spouting off about its evils.

[General Septem]

It's a right. But I still think people shouldn't vote if they don't know what the hell they're voting for. I also think people should not vote if they think their own personal beliefs are more important than everyone else's liberty. Democracy is not liberty if 75% of the people decide that they and the other 25% aren't going to own guns. It's not your right to decide that for everyone.

[Loseirdo]

It's a right. But I still think people shouldn't vote if they don't know what the hell they're voting for. I also think people should not vote if they think their own personal beliefs are more important than everyone else's liberty. Democracy is not liberty if 75% of the people decide that they and the other 25% aren't going to own guns. It's not your right to decide that for everyone.

It is in a majority rule system. We do not have that kind of system, however.

You doubt the wisdom of crowds so much, but why? From what I can tell, they seem to do things well:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-02-06-1.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mZroxXmFovc

Remember that we are not a true Democracy. The people do not make decisions -- the people we vote into office make decisions for us. But still, that doesn't change the fact that if the senators are able to pass a bill, it is likely a bill that the American people (or at least most of the American people [or at least most of the American people who voted]) want. Some things require simple plurality (largest percentage), some things require majority (more than 50%), and some things require two-thirds majority. Any way you slice it, if it gets done, it deserves to be there. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea, but it will be the law until it gets changed, and it's our duty as Americans to respect that. *cue patriotic music*

p.s. - I think voting is a privilege, a right, and a duty. It's a duty because the government is based entirely on the people we elect. It's a right because only tax-paying, law-abiding citizens are allowed to do it (or should be, anyway). It's a privilege because this is one of the few countries in the world where each and every individual is accounted for. Therefore, I am abstaining from the vote. (How ironic!)

[General Septem]

It is in a majority rule system. We do not have that kind of system, however.

You doubt the wisdom of crowds so much, but why? From what I can tell, they seem to do things well:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-02-06-1.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mZroxXmFovc

Remember that we are not a true Democracy. The people do not make decisions -- the people we vote into office make decisions for us. But still, that doesn't change the fact that if the senators are able to pass a bill, it is likely a bill that the American people (or at least most of the American people [or at least most of the American people who voted]) want. Some things require simple plurality (largest percentage), some things require majority (more than 50%), and some things require two-thirds majority. Any way you slice it, if it gets done, it deserves to be there. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea, but it will be the law until it gets changed, and it's our duty as Americans to respect that. *cue patriotic music*

If all this were true, all of America's laws would protect our liberties rather than infringe upon them. As it is, there are countless laws that infringe upon our liberties for various reasons. Many of these laws the majority agree with, but that does not make them right. I will own guns and do whatever I want with my body regardless of what everyone else thinks or wants. It's not their decision.

The fact of the matter is, the majority can easily be swayed by the media.

[Loseirdo]

If all this were true, all of America's laws would protect our liberties rather than infringe upon them. As it is, there are countless laws that infringe upon our liberties for various reasons. Many of these laws the majority agree with, but that does not make them right. I will own guns and do whatever I want with my body regardless of what everyone else thinks or wants. It's not their decision.

The fact of the matter is, the majority can easily be swayed by the media.

You may not think it's their right, but you will still be held accountable for any actions that defy the established laws. That's just the way it is.

Besides, what you have suggested is just one political stance. Who's to say it's the right one? Simply put, the fore-fathers knew that no one political position would be right for this country. That's why they set it up the way they did. Under the current system, the people will replace a system that does not work with a new one, and continue replacing old systems with new systems until one is found that works. That system will be used until it no longer works, then a new one will be found. I don't believe in political absolutism, or the idea that one political party is always right. Different times call for different ideas, and no one party has all the answers. That being said, I am a staunch conservative with traditional values, and I don't see that changing much in the near future.

[Limbo]

I don't believe in political absolutism, or the idea that one political party is always right. Different times call for different ideas, and no one party has all the answers.

Yeah, I think you are absolutely right. I'll give you this example. Back during the industrial revolution where greedy factory owners were screwing over workers, I would have been a strong supporter of the unions. But now in modern times, unions have run their course, especially in highly developed countries like the United States, and actually do more harm than good to society as a whole. Same with slavery, if the Democrats were the only party trying to end it, I would have sided with them at that time.

Different times do indeed call for different ideas. That don't make me a liberal though, at least by the modern definition, just someone who believes in using common sense to do what is right.

[General Septem]

You may not think it's their right, but you will still be held accountable for any actions that defy the established laws. That's just the way it is.

You may not think it's their right to ban Christianity (nor do I), but you will still be held accountable for your beliefs if an elected official decides to take that right away. That's the way it is, but it's still wrong, so what's your fucking point? Defeatism has no place in an intelligent discussion.


Besides, what you have suggested is just one political stance. Who's to say it's the right one?

Because it's the only political stance that everyone can live free from oppression under. It's the only political stance under which the government doesn't cater to one special interest group at the expense of everyone else. It's the only political stance under which the government, when properly set up, will never initiate violence against anyone.


That being said, I am a staunch conservative with traditional values, and I don't see that changing much in the near future.

And that's fine, but I know people who think there should be fornication laws. People who think guns should be illegal. Plenty of people who think drugs should remain illegal. In reality, none of these issues are any of anyone's business. I won't presume as to which conservative traditional values you think should be enacted into law, but I will say that your personal beliefs should remain personal, and not imposed upon anyone.

[Limbo]

Plenty of people who think drugs should remain illegal. In reality, none of these issues are any of anyone's business.

So how far would you take it then, should dope dealers be able to sell heroin to school children legally and tell them it will make them feel good? If so, at what age?

[General Septem]

So how far would you take it then, should dope dealers be able to sell heroin to school children legally and tell them it will make them feel good? If so, at what age?

Dope dealers would no longer exist if drugs were legal, because you could get it at a drug store. In this case, it would probably be illegal to sell to minors, because they are not legal adults yet.

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

So how far would you take it then, should dope dealers be able to sell heroin to school children legally and tell them it will make them feel good? If so, at what age?

As far as I remeber, alcohol can't be sold under theese condintions. if drugs were legal, we could regulate them easier and get rid of dope dealers.

[Loseirdo]

You may not think it's their right to ban Christianity (nor do I), but you will still be held accountable for your beliefs if an elected official decides to take that right away.

You're right. And you know what? I would gladly accept any punishment they threw at me if I was caught practicing Christianity. Setting a drinking age is far different than banning a religion. The one is trivial, the other is not. As is the way in our country, you still have the right to petition, rally, and vote in order to change any law (such as the drinking age) that you do not agree with. Besides, if they banned Christianity, I'd probably just leave.

I still believe that there should be limits on freedom. There is no such thing as a victimless crime. I know you like to be the lone wolf and not give a shit about what other people think about you or your actions, but it's still the government's responsibility to do what it can to keep the society healthy and the citizens active and productive. What happens when we legalize drugs? Productivity takes a big nose dive
.....
....
...
..
.
.
.
.
.
down. What happens to the families of all the new drug addicts? Can you say, "Hello, foster care"? Total freedom is anarchy, and anarchy has been shown to suck royally in the past, so...

[General Septem]

You're right. And you know what? I would gladly accept any punishment they threw at me if I was caught practicing Christianity.

That's fine, but the debate here is that democracy can lead to terrible things if the public is led to vote for them. I'm not saying it necessarily will, I'm saying it can and it has. Remember: Hitler was elected.


Setting a drinking age is far different than banning a religion. The one is trivial, the other is not.

If you think prohibition is trivial, I suggest you take "History of the US since 1865", if your college or university offers such a course, and pay close attention to the section on the 1920s, specifically the bit on Prohibition, and then tell me just how damn trivial it is. Setting the drinking age to 21 is no different, because legal adults are affected by it.

I assure you that, different though they may be from one another, none of our rights are at all "trivial". It doesn't matter what right is in question, it does not change the fact that a choice you are supposed to make for yourself is being made for you.

Your apathy towards injustice is disturbing and sickening, given your level of intelligence. For you to stand by and watch our liberties turn to dust makes you worse than our captors themselves.


As is the way in our country, you still have the right to petition, rally, and vote in order to change any law (such as the drinking age) that you do not agree with.

I don't see any of the countless petitions with millions of signatures doing any good so far, and they've been in circulation since the enactment of the Federal Highway Act. Anti-drinking age petitions are so common they've become a running joke in the politicians' offices.

Besides, you're missing the point. These things shouldn't even be laws in the first place. It doesn't matter that soccer moms and Christians make up 80% of the population and think it's their God-given right to live in a society where everyone else bows to their will. It's an injustice to those legal adults that can't legally drink.


Besides, if they banned Christianity, I'd probably just leave.

And if you were forbidden to leave, you'd probably just stay, because you believe that every authority figure in existence is the image and delegate of God and that by his will you are to do whatever they say.

Excuse me if I refuse to believe in a God who would treat us in such a way. Certainly the whole "proclaim liberty to captives" thing is in no way a justification for my heresy, and in fact was probably written by the devil in the first place. Never mind what the Bible says, anyway - God doesn't want you to be free, he wants you to do everything anyone ever tells you to. And give the Church money.


There is no such thing as a victimless crime.

I could go about answering this in two ways. The first and most obvious would be to point out just how many crimes are, indeed, victimless, and why, but that leaves far too much room for misinterpretation and desperate retort.

So let's look at this another way. If no crime is victimless, and the government decides what constitutes a crime, then by default the government decides who is a victim. New laws are made all the time, so if you believe the government cannot be in error, then on a whim they could make a crime of anything and make you, personally, believe that it actually affects someone.


I know you like to be the lone wolf and not give a shit about what other people think about you or your actions,

Far from it. I just don't care for judgmental assholes telling me that what I'm doing is wrong. In matters of religion, it's called fundamentalism, in matters of government they are called lawmakers, and in matters of society it is called Democracy.

Everyone I choose to care for respects my intelligence and individuality.


but it's still the government's responsibility to do what it can to keep the society healthy and the citizens active and productive.

True, but the government is doing more than it can by taking away our liberties.


What happens when we legalize drugs? Productivity takes a big nose dive
.....
....
...
..
.
.
.
.
.
down.

Thanks for the visual cue, with all the coke I've been taking I forgot which way is down. But it still doesn't make your point any more valid.


What happens to the families of all the new drug addicts?

Firstly, it is the responsibility of the individual to care for their families, not the government.

Second, are you insane? "NEW drug addicts"? Who seriously says, "gee, I love coke so much, I just wish it was legal so I could have some!"? The only thing drug laws do is make drugs even more widely used and make life even harder on drug addicts. This is exactly what prohibition did, and there's no reason to believe the War on Drugs is doing any different.

[Loseirdo]

I don't really have time to respond right now. I just wanted to thank you for doing such a wonderful job of missing the point so many times. Bravo.

[General Septem]

I don't really have time to respond right now. I just wanted to thank you for doing such a wonderful job of missing the point so many times. Bravo.

No, your point was very clear. If you feel I have not responded to the point you were trying to make, perhaps you should be more direct about it.

As for missing points, you appear not to have read a word I've written, let alone the point of them.

[Loseirdo]

If you think prohibition is trivial,
&< snip

Perhaps "trivial" was not the best word, but you are going way over the top by comparing the drinking age to prohibition. I never made that connection and it is a crazy connection to make, so I don't really get your point.



I assure you
&< snip


My good General, there is a difference between freedom and anarchy. Each of us is trying to find the line so we don't cross it. We are merely looking in different places.

The line you have drawn is dangerously close to anarchy in my opinion, and the line I have drawn is dangerously close to fascism in yours. Which of us is right? Perhaps neither, and that's why no one political party has ever controlled our government indefinitely. To claim that I hate liberty and am apathetic towards injustice simply because I have different opinions than you makes you seem incredibly conceited. I can just as easily claim that you have no morals and have a total disregard for public safety, but name calling hasn't gotten anyone anywhere before, so let's cut the childish banter, shall we?



I don't see any of the countless petitions with millions of signatures doing any good so far, and they've been in circulation since the enactment of the Federal Highway Act. Anti-drinking age petitions are so common they've become a running joke in the politicians' offices.


Perhaps you're right. In that case, perhaps you should attempt to elect a different senator come election time. If the senator you like fails to be elected, well, that's the Democratic process at work and I don't really know what to tell you.



Besides, you're missing the point. These things shouldn't even be laws in the first place. It doesn't matter that soccer moms and Christians make up 80&#37; of the population and think it's their God-given right to live in a society where everyone else bows to their will. It's an injustice to those legal adults that can't legally drink.


They shouldn't be laws in your opinion. When your opinion is the majority opinion, then we'll see.



And if you were forbidden to leave, you'd probably just stay, because you believe that every authority figure in existence is the image and delegate of God and that by his will you are to do whatever they say.

Excuse me if I refuse to believe in a God who would treat us in such a way. Certainly the whole "proclaim liberty to captives" thing is in no way a justification for my heresy, and in fact was probably written by the devil in the first place. Never mind what the Bible says, anyway - God doesn't want you to be free, he wants you to do everything anyone ever tells you to. And give the Church money.


More name-calling and childish insults. They don't exactly strengthen your point.

I almost don't even want to respond to this paragraph because it's so far off the mark it nearly seems like a joke.

I'm pretty sure I never said that authority figures are "the image and delegate of God". Nor did I ever say that God wants us to be captives. I never actually said that God wants us to give the Church money, but tithing is mentioned all throughout the Bible, so I'll leave well enough alone. What I did say is that God expects us to respect authority. That doesn't mean that authority is always right. I think the Catechism is right on the money when it says that we should respect authority and obey the established laws only when they do not conflict with the Christian way of life. That's why we can have wine at Mass but not at home. This doesn't make me a sheep or a zombie or any mindless follower. I can simply recognize that the established laws in America do not impede my or anyone else's pursuit of Heaven, so to disobey them would be simply for the sake of spiting another, which is both arrogant and unnecessary. Arrogance is condemned many times in the Bible, so I don't see any reason not to follow our current laws.



I could go about answering this in two ways. The first and most obvious would be to point out just how many crimes are, indeed, victimless, and why, but that leaves far too much room for misinterpretation and desperate retort.

So let's look at this another way. If no crime is victimless, and the government decides what constitutes a crime, then by default the government decides who is a victim. New laws are made all the time, so if you believe the government cannot be in error, then on a whim they could make a crime of anything and make you, personally, believe that it actually affects someone.


First, let me clarify my original point. I did not mean that no crime that has ever existed has been a victimless crime. Obviously, if wearing hats became a crime, it would be a vitimless crime because it does not actually affect anything. I simply meant that no crime in existence today, to the best of my knowledge, is truly victimless. You might say that using drugs is victimless, but if you cause any harm to anyone while intoxicated, that crime now has a victim. Since that is almost always the case (harm is not always physical in nature, but could be psychological or spiritual, or even indirect, such as a father being fired due to cocaine use and therefore not having sufficient funds to feed his family), drugs are dangerous by proxy and therefore a victim crime.

Second, if the government did make a crime out of wearing hats for absolutely no reason, the people would revolt, and I would be among those revolting. If a law is enacted for no reason, it does not deserve to be a law. If hats were made illegal for a good reason (obviously, I can't really think of anything), then I wouldn't wear hats anymore. As long as the laws can be justified, the government is not overreaching its boundaries.

(Which isn't to say that I would still wear hats if they were made illegal. I would stop wearing them, but I would still revolt. There's no sense risking a ticket or jail time for something as stupid as a hat, since it's the motivation, not the law itself, that actually matters.)



Far from it. I just don't care for judgmental assholes telling me that what I'm doing is wrong. In matters of religion, it's called fundamentalism, in matters of government they are called lawmakers, and in matters of society it is called Democracy.

Everyone I choose to care for respects my intelligence and individuality.


Respects your intelligence and individuality? You mean they never tell you when you've made a mistake? Some friends. If I fuck up, I want people to tell me, even if I don't agree with them. For one thing, it lets me know they care, and for another, they might actually be right and I'm just too stubborn to see. Only a fool would think himself infallible. Yeah, yeah, you fuck up in math all the time. That doesn't change the fact that you have a definite air of moral elitism about you. You might have to check me on this, but I'm pretty sure that that is condemned just about everywhere it appears in the Bible. But I guess as long as you don't believe you're wrong, you aren't, right?



True, but the government is doing more than it can by taking away our liberties.


One man's liberty is another man's detriment. Where do we draw the line? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.



Thanks for the visual cue, with all the coke I've been taking I forgot which way is down. But it still doesn't make your point any more valid.


Neither do snippy remarks make it any less valid. Not everything I say is meant as an insult to your intelligence. If you actually tried debating that way, we might get somewhere.



Firstly, it is the responsibility of the individual to care for their families, not the government.

Second, are you insane? "NEW drug addicts"? Who seriously says, "gee, I love coke so much, I just wish it was legal so I could have some!"? The only thing drug laws do is make drugs even more widely used and make life even harder on drug addicts. This is exactly what prohibition did, and there's no reason to believe the War on Drugs is doing any different.


But it is the responsibility of the government to care for its citizens -- especially those incapable of caring for themselves.

I'm not saying that there are people who wish drugs were legal so they could start doing them. I'm saying that as soon as we legalize drugs, they are going to start becoming socially acceptable. At that point, there will be absolutely no deterrent for people and anyone who wants to try them can easily and legally do so. If even 50% of the people who tried drugs became addicted (it's undoubtedly higher than that, unless you count those who died on their first use, but this is just hypothetical), that means that if even half of the United States population tried drugs just because they could, just to see what they're like, a whopping 75,000,000 people would end up addicted and in need of rehab, all while their relationships suffer, their home falls apart, and they undoubtedly get fired. All we need is more homeless drug addicts littering our streets.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Published_Articles/Oops.html

Have a read of that. It's good stuff.

[General Septem]

Perhaps "trivial" was not the best word, but you are going way over the top by comparing the drinking age to prohibition. I never made that connection and it is a crazy connection to make, so I don't really get your point.

A crazy connection? We're legal adults and the government is treating us like children by saying we can't have alcohol. This isn't a matter of physiology because we have just about the highest drinking age among any country that even allows alcohol.

If you cannot see the similarity between the unreasonable drinking age and prohibition, then surely you can see the similarity between prohibition and the War on Drugs.


My good General, there is a difference between freedom and anarchy. Each of us is trying to find the line so we don't cross it. We are merely looking in different places.

It is not a line, they are two different things altogether. Anarchy is absence of government, absence of rules. Liberty is the philosophy of self-ownership. The difference is that libertarianism allows laws that protect our liberties and disallows those that infringe upon them. There is no line to draw whatsoever; the difference between a liberty protecting law and a liberty infringing law is very clear. On the other hand, anarchism wants to see government cease to exist altogether.


To claim that I hate liberty and am apathetic towards injustice simply because I have different opinions than you makes you seem incredibly conceited.

You haven't done much to show this not to be the case. Whenever the subject of law comes up, you consistently take the stance that "that's just the way it is", "you can disagree all you want, but you're still subject to the consequences" and all that other nonsense. I never said you hate liberty, but you certainly don't seem to care much about it, by the stance you take.


Perhaps you're right. In that case, perhaps you should attempt to elect a different senator come election time. If the senator you like fails to be elected, well, that's the Democratic process at work and I don't really know what to tell you.

Well that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not saying people's voices shouldn't be heard, I'm saying majoritariamism seldom leads to liberty. People can be swayed far too easily. Ever heard of Fox News?


They shouldn't be laws in your opinion. When your opinion is the majority opinion, then we'll see.

This is the point, the majority opinion does not matter because these laws are an infringement upon our liberties. They do not protect anyone's liberties because nobody has the right to dictate what other people put in their bodies. The fact that most people disagree with this (which they really don't) would change nothing.


I can simply recognize that the established laws in America do not impede my or anyone else's pursuit of Heaven, so to disobey them would be simply for the sake of spiting another,

They impede our pursuit of liberty - and just who the fuck would I be "spiting" by enjoying a beer? This is arrogant nonsense, and precisely what I dislike about most Christians. They consistently take the position that anyone who does anything outside their accepted fare is doing so purely out of spite, selfishness, or hatred.

I took your (and others') advice and began reading 1984, by the way. Very insightful.


which is both arrogant and unnecessary. Arrogance is condemned many times in the Bible, so I don't see any reason not to follow our current laws.

Perhaps because it's more arrogant to presume that the government has the right to tell us what to do than to presume that we are intelligent beings who can decide for ourselves how we are to live.


I simply meant that no crime in existence today, to the best of my knowledge, is truly victimless. You might say that using drugs is victimless, but if you cause any harm to anyone while intoxicated, that crime now has a victim.

Then the crime is harming others, not using drugs. Using drugs harms nobody but those who choose to use them.


Since that is almost always the case (harm is not always physical in nature, but could be psychological or spiritual, or even indirect, such as a father being fired due to cocaine use and therefore not having sufficient funds to feed his family), drugs are dangerous by proxy and therefore a victim crime.

"By proxy" isn't good enough. You can get addicted to nearly anything, as well as hurt yourself with nearly anything. All drugs have benefits and all drugs have side effects. The extent to which a drug is beneficial and to which it is harmful varies, but that does not change the fact that all drugs can be used for a purpose. They can be used responsibly and they can be used irresponsibly.

Additionally, nobody has the right to ensure their loved ones don't do anything to worry them. Everyone will do as they will, and if others choose to worry about them, that's their own problem. If someone chose to worry about me over a choice I made, I would appreciate this, but if they acted like it was my responsibility to stop worrying them, I'd put them in their place. I don't need anyone's care if they treat me like a child.


Second, if the government did make a crime out of wearing hats for absolutely no reason, the people would revolt, and I would be among those revolting.

Well you should have said this when I brought up the prospect of the government banning Christianity.


If a law is enacted for no reason, it does not deserve to be a law.

Well now we're getting somewhere. Unfortunately, you seem to believe that every law in effect has sufficient reason to be law.


Respects your intelligence and individuality? You mean they never tell you when you've made a mistake?

Of course not. Usually when I do screw up, I don't need it pointed out to me, but when they do, I appreciate this. But if they were to take the position that I'm obligated to act in a certain way out of care for them, as in your example, I don't need them as a friend.


That doesn't change the fact that you have a definite air of moral elitism about you.

Moral elitism? I could say that about you. The only thing I'm "elite" about is the government staying the fuck out of my business. In fact, I seem to remember it being me who's constantly taking the position of accepting and understanding people for who they are.

I will say that perhaps I come across as elite to you because I have a grudge against a lot of mentalities consistent with certain Catholics, and because I've noticed some of these qualities in you. If I am presumptuous because of false expectations stemming from these observations, I apologize.

See, I'm not above accepting criticism from others.


One man's liberty is another man's detriment. Where do we draw the line? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

So here's a rhetorical answer: we let each person draw the line for himself, and stay out of their business as long as they stay out of ours.


I'm not saying that there are people who wish drugs were legal so they could start doing them. I'm saying that as soon as we legalize drugs, they are going to start becoming socially acceptable. At that point, there will be absolutely no deterrent for people and anyone who wants to try them can easily and legally do so. If even 50% of the people who tried drugs became addicted (it's undoubtedly higher than that, unless you count those who died on their first use, but this is just hypothetical), that means that if even half of the United States population tried drugs just because they could, just to see what they're like, a whopping 75,000,000 people would end up addicted and in need of rehab, all while their relationships suffer, their home falls apart, and they undoubtedly get fired. All we need is more homeless drug addicts littering our streets.

Speculation. Obviously none of this can be proven nor disproven, so I will simply respond by saying that people said the same of ending prohibition. None of their predictions came true. By the way, I don't know anyone who would get near drugs, even if they were legal, with the exception of those that already use them.

The bottom line is, getting a speeding ticket does not teach you that speeding is dangerous - it teaches you to take your eyes off the road and divert your attention to looking out for cop cars. Getting into an accident teaches you that speeding is dangerous. It's the same for drugs; nobody's afraid of the big bad government. People who don't do drugs genuinely don't want to.

[WhiteRaven]

"Respects your intelligence and individuality? You mean they never tell you when you've made a mistake? Some friends."

How, pray tell, do you get that from what he said?

"but tithing is mentioned all throughout the Bible"

Well, yes, but... I'll just quote a few main points instead of asking you to read the entire huge ass-fucking article...


SOME SHOCKING TRUTHS ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN TITHING DOCTRINE

1. Abraham never tithed on his own personal property or livestock.

2. Jacob wouldn’t tithe until God blessed him first.

3. Only Levite priests could collect tithes, and there are no Levite priests today.

4. Only food products from the land were tithable.

5. Money was never a titheable commodity.


[1] Gen. 14:20, "And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he [Abram] gave him [Melchizedek] TITHES of all [the goods of war, Ver. 16]."


Abraham went to war on behalf of Sodom (SODOM, mind you), to rescue his nephew, Lot. He then gave 10&#37; of these spoils of war to Melchizedek, and allowed Sodom to keep 90%, while he himself kept NOTHING!

Now then, is there a Scholar alive that can explain to us how this one event, is Scriptural proof that Christians should give 10% of their annual salaries (not the spoils of war, but their money, their salaries), not once, but year after year after year, not to Melchizedek, but to Priests?


No tithe-preaching clergyman would use the example of how Jacob tithed.


[3] Gen. 28:20-22, "And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, IF God will be with me, and [if God] will keep me in this way that I go, and [if God] will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, So that I come again to my father’s house in peace; THEN shall the Lord be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shall GIVE ME I will surely give the TENTH unto thee."

[MrJim]

Voting is a right. A citizen has every right to help determine his or her leader.

At least in a democracy.