In the case of this 'medium', I'd ponder first that he's schizophrenic. xD However, if I had such an ability or happened upon such information that a person was going to potentially kill others, I would try other routes first before thinking of murdering someone before he/she could commit a crime. A person could always change his/her mind and who knows.. maybe I could even talk the person out of it. First thing I'd do is investigate the scenario and resolve whether I would be going to the authorities or not with this evidence of whatever I can dig up. If I can't do such a thing, I suppose I would try to be around the scene and stop the person, since I see ahead of time what he/she is going to do. I mean really... if you see the deaths etc and know the cause, what's to stop you from getting evidence or showing up at the scene to take the person down at the time? I'd be freaking Batman about it. Also, I wouldn't try to -kill- the person unless there was no choice. I'm not going to do pre-meditated murder. If it has to happen at the time, it does, but otherwise, I'd try to stop the person by just incapacitating him/her or disabling their bombs or whatever. Now, if I'm at a scene where people are getting killed and could make the choice to kill that one or a few responsible versus letting them kill droves of others, I would still try to incapacitate, but if it's not probable, it's shoot to kill. Those who would take the lives of others like that are wrong to do so. i.e. spree killers, I'd take them down without a thought to save the lives of others. Again, I'd try to not 'kill' them but if it happens, I won't be that disheartened either as I did what I had to in order to let others live.
Please don't call people 'kids' etc here like that and slam them. Demoralizing, talking down to people, is not the way to win a debate. It just makes people think you are pompous. There are quite a few Americans that believe that if someone doesn't believe in God, they are not real Americans. Plenty. Watch the conservative channels more often and it's clear as day. As has been shown, what is ridiculous about removing something that was added just to cater to a religious group when we have a plethora of religious groups etc? It should not be 'offensive' but it will be to whiny people who say the country is 'godless'. It would save money in the end. Also, it does not represent us appropriately as a free nation where people can believe in what they want. It's either the point to add symbols of multiple religions and the A symbol etc, or to remove 'In God we Trust' to be a true representation of our country. Why can't some Americans do what others did in the 50s and lobby for a change? It worked for the Christian group. It's not that big a deal. Actually his argument is very valid. Yahweh is an imaginary friend to some, a deity to others, etc. Brahma is a deity to some and an imaginary friend to others. Odin is a deity to some and a myth to others. Zeus, Horus, Diana, Satan, etc are real to some and made up ideologies to others. Just because some people think something is real doesn't mean it belongs on our currency as it does not properly represent us and other religious groups and Atheists must just sit back and let that represent us. If again, in the 1950s people could lobby and won to have it put on, why are you so against people speaking out and wanting to lobby to have it removed? That makes no sense. It's not childish. People get things done by caring and in all technicality, it never should have been approved in the first place, but it was. The government isn't supposed to just be recognizing 'one' religion. Our currency and pledge represent this country and government. It's either all religions and lack of religion are recognized -or- none. I don't think that's too much to ask. A king is a living person or was so the point is rather irrelevant. If people don't want to have a religious thing on their money, it's a process the same as what added it there in the first place. You are pretty much telling people it is stupid to do something that is ultimately American. The church isn't doing it. It's Christians that assume their words should be a representation alone of this country and this is not a Christian country, regardless of how some people try to say it is. It is a country that acknowledges freedom of religion and separation of -church- and -state-. Therefore, if people want to lobby again to have the 1950s actions removed, what's the big deal to you. If you say you can go on either way, what's the point of debating it? To say some Atheists and people of other religions are being jerks because we don't like it that our country money or pledge does not truly represent us ALL as a people? If in the 1950s it was approved to single out a religion in such a manner and all, there's every right today with more diversity for people to say the acts were foolish to be approved and to see them removed. It's as simple as that. If you don't care either way, it doesn't matter to you. For other people on either side of the fence, it does. Actually, in a sense, it is reducing the -power- of religious conservatives if they lose their cherished things they had added to the currency and pledge which never belonged there. It is a message to other people of varying religions or a lack of religion that this country acknowledges the right to believe in what you want so long as it is not hurting anyone else. It is conveying a message that was intended in the first place with this country. Lastly, if there was no problem on the other side, why are people fighting so hard to -KEEP- the 1950s actions instead of caring about the beliefs of others and representation of them? Why do they expect others of varying cultures to cater to something that the -authors- did not even put in initially? It simply does not belong on the currency. Ironically, I had an email the other day from someone passing around crap at work, that said 'the 'in God we Trust' was removed from this year's dollar coin, so everyone, if you don't like it, refuse to use it and turn it back in! It was a conservative and pretty serious thing that shows there is an actual issue. YES, there are more important things to focus on in the world, but we're a nation and can do more than one stupid thing at once. Not seeing again why you say it's so pointless and talk down to the others of opposition when in fact, it's these little movements that get things to happen bit by bit. Maybe it accomplishes nothing in your mind but to others it means they are finally acknowledged while to others, it ticks them off because we're so 'godless'. Many people probably won't care either way, but for those who do, it's their right to debate it out and toss it to the senate etc.
As said, KH 2 works unless this rumor goes in tandem with another game.
In the 1950s a lot of Christian movement arose to try to declare the country 'Christian' and it was allowed to happen with the altering of currency as well as the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a crying shame in a way and there are people that are still out there that say if these are removed that the country is 'godless' and horrible. I agree that these things should be corrected to show that this country respects all views of religion or lack of religious viewpoint. However, there are some hard-nosed people out there that think: 1. the pledge always had God in it. 2. the currency always did. and 3. Why change it if it isn't broke. Basically, they feel people are griping for no reason and just want to steal Christian power away when this country was founded on the ideal that religious freedom was a must and that there is a division between church and state. State is what our currency comes from. Not the churches. It shouldn't be there, but it is. In the end, there's not much to do about it but lobby for it and hope someday people see that giving in during the 1950s was a mistake and that a more clear message of equality as was intended should have been used instead. It will be some time though before that would happen with the rise of nutty evangelicals especially.
You are absolutely right. The person who created the pledge even wanted instead to put in something to the effects of people being 'equal' instead and people in the 50s changed it to 'under God'. The reason the equality measure was not added was because at the time there was still a division of race and gender so it was removed before it was presented. The 'under God' took the place of it by people later. Many people do not know this and it is rather sad because I'd think the message of equality far outweighs 'under God' any day. The ironic part about it is a man of the cloth wrote the pledge of allegiance and did not seek any reference to God to be in it. He knew what this country stood for. It's a shame later Christians did not.
I cannot see Marilyn Manson or any of the other musicians as responsible for what those teens did. I would say the people responsible are the teens themselves as no one forced them to do what they decided to do. I can sympathize with why they finally wigged out due to the peer pressure, the condemning natures of elitist personalities that were let to fester etc, but they handled it poorly; just as any spree killers do. Blaming music and other sources for the behaviors of actual people in their lives that were making them miserable, and themselves seems like a desire to toss off the actual condition that is the real problem. Had parents and staff disciplined those other students, maybe things would have been different. Had society taken notice of these troubled teens and tried to help better their environment, maybe things wouldn't have happened this way. There's a higher chance that things would have changed had some people actually cared to do things in their lives rather than write them off, rather than worrying about what music they listened to. It's easy for people to not want to blame themselves for what happens that is negative out there but even Marilyn Manson commented on the one thing people could have done to fix things and prevent a tragedy. He wouldn't have talked... he would have -listened-. Many tragedies in life can be averted early on if people just did that a bit more.
The statistics are more accurate than some people assume. The reason mainly is because of how Americans think and what words they tie together to mean things. Good and Christian are too often used together despite the fact that a majority of criminals are Christian, let alone there are Christian terrorists, extortionists, etc. For some reason, the desire to keep insisting that anyone who is Christian is good continues to lead people astray from actually studying the person and his/her qualities. It is why the smear campaign was done on Obama to say he was Islamic. It's so easy right now for people to see Islamic and Terrorist used synonymously. It's not always true either but prejudiced people attach it. Atheist is often used with words like 'No Morality' or 'Heathen' or 'Blasphemer' etc. Since the majority of the U.S. are Christian, there are people that just in the end do not understand what Atheists are and they are not willing to look beyond a label, same as the two above examples. We may be ready for a president of ethnic background difference or gender, but we are apparently not ready for someone of different belief besides being Christian or possibly Jewish. We even had a Mormon candidate running this last time. However, people did bash that person too, though I can say I did not want the person either. Atheists won't want to run on their platform of 'religious stance' because they won't feel it important, but other people will make it important. People have made religious views of candidates important whether candidates want it brought forward or not because some people really are intimidated by someone who just does not believe as they do. Until we have more understanding that what makes a person a good person has little to do with what deity or lack of deity the person believes in, we're going to face these problems. It is something that has been brought up lately and I am glad to see it is gaining some attention. It is these kinds of attentions that are brought forward which have made people think about how to treat homosexuals, those of different ethnic backgrounds and of gender differences. Hopefully it will also teach people here to be more comprehensive and to examine a person as a person first as issues forced forward often make us do the same for the other things we need to learn to accept better. I'd vote on someone regardless of gender, sexual orientation or religious views so long as the person isn't an extremist idiot at this point. That's the one thing I cannot stand is an extremist.
Um no, God did those things to Job and let them happen. Whether anyone else was 'part of it' or not, he was tested by God for his obedience to the point of nearly having to kill his son. In the end, if I actually believed in some entities that have shown me no proof of their existences save for stories passed down, I would choose that which is around me to follow. I get very annoyed at people who say they disown their own siblings, offspring, friends etc, because suddenly they found out the person was gay, atheist, believing in another religion, or what have you. Some people are so pathetic that they will declare they will even want to -kill- their offspring for lack of believing in God etc. These people have brought misery to families and friends for so long and one can only hope they grow up or their mode of thought goes the way of the dinosaur. A belief shouldn't mean more than what is tangible and real before you, ever.
I'm just glad the idiot failed and the detonator was wrong. Apparently the same man who encouraged the guy to do killings at the Texas military base is also behind encouraging this man to do his deed on the plane. Heard he burnt his nads so maybe now that he doesn't have any nads to get his virgins with when he dies, he'll talk. People that go after civilians like this suck. Glad that another passenger tackled him and stopped things from progressing. People are standing up to these terrorist attacks and though they get hurt, I am glad to see we do. I would as well. These people need to be shown we aren't going to just lay down and accept their jihad stuff anymore. We are fortunate the detonator failed though and I do not get why this man was not blacklisted from flying in the first place. He was on a terrorist watch list. Of course, people slip through the cracks or there is only so much we can do legally but it almost ended in disaster. Just happy it did not and maybe we can start getting some answers to get after these people better.
Heya Rosey and Merry Xmas to you too.
Sure thing.
Doing fine. Just busy. How are you doing lately?
Keep the White House white.. that makes me laugh when I hear it. This country is such a melting pot of so many cultures, ethnicity etc that in one sense, Obama represents us better than many presidents of the past have. He's multi-racial and so aren't many Americans today. It's also not like people of other ethnicity haven't stepped in the White House and worked there too. Simple minds for simple people. Sometime those sorts of people will just die out and they are becoming a minority as more sensible people step forward. Laughing at stupid people helps relieve stress.
The awesome power of humanity is creativity, imagination and the ability to inspire great things or rather crappy ones. Sentience is a great gift and yet a blight to others. Imagination created up gods to do fantastic things to explain phenomenon that has no need to be there now. It was a means to also control the population because some people don't fear repercussions in life but would fear an all time burning or freezing or torment somewhere not nice for their souls. Life and death have always fascinated people and death is such a frightening concept to some. Seeing as I have no fear of it nor a desire to really hurry things up along, I really could care less. Humanity and life in itself are great things to study and be a part of, to learn the good and the bad. We don't -need- to have these supernatural entities that have no proof of existing to make life more meaningful. Some people think they do and it makes life more meaningful for them so it works for them. To me, it's limiting and it gets in the way of making me a decent person to be one free of will without fear of punishment and I feel more genuine in all I do. Also, what I meant is that why would a god so powerful as Yahweh have fits of jealousy, condemn, murder, order rape, taking of slaves, encourage human minds to see against what is said in challenge against his speakers etc and then outright slaughter babies? Why does Yahweh, if he existed, put a tree up in a garden that has forbidden fruit on it and not expect the very child like, naive minds of Adam or Eve to do nothing? Why does he act superior and punish men and women for all eternity for putting a proverbial cookie jar on the table, bad influence comes over (and he knows it will happen because he -knows- all) and encourages one to eat a cookie.. Then essentially the one shares with her friend/partner a cookie. Hmm. Adam and Eve is absolutely stolen as so many things are from other cultures. It's also a lame story that people should have laughed off in this day and age and yet even here, people bring it up to defend it. Yahweh has some awful fits for an omniscient, omnipotent deity that has interfered in human's lives in the past and yet condemned them for his wrong doing. In the end, it's a very -human- creation, in my eyes, because a god with these abilities and powers he possesses surely could not be so cruel and should have punished himself instead but humans.. we love to pass the blame to others. It makes Yahweh look pretty weak and pathetic.. human, even with all that power. Life is a grand thing. 'Magical', is said not in the way you take it. Just because something can hold you in awe and amazement, that you can feel you are a part of things and that life and sentience to experience it more fully than others lacking it can... it does not mean there is some god out there who had to be responsible for it. There is nothing to suggest, to me, other than our imaginations that some originator had to be involved. You see and choose to believe there is an entity there behind it. That is a leap of faith. I once believed in it too, but have lost the desire to when there's nothing for me to back it up. However, I realized that the stories are mostly full of mythology stolen from what Jews and Christians as well as Muslims call bunk now. Why is it the earth was created in 7 days is more believable than the earth was created in the numerous other ways that have been described prior? It's no more valid. There's nothing at all to back it but human imagination and a will to see it as more truthful. Just because people believe in something, doesn't make it the truth. That's subjective interference. What I see in this world is what I -know- I can see, feel, taste, touch, hear. We have a lot more power to observe and comprehend than we ever have and more information becomes available readily. I can confirm the earth is over 6000 years old. I can confirm the existence of species and that the moon has water, and the moon does not cast its own light without the glow of the sun, and the earth is not flat and held up on any pillars. Some people believe in religious entities, but with what truly is going on out there and the fact none of them step forward, and things can be explained and felt, analyzed in a fashion that doesn't just say 'God did it' or 'The devil did it' .. well.. I'd rather go with what actually feels very real to me rather than trying to put off things to beings that seem to be figments of our grand design. You believe in God, and that's fine. Your perception is your own. I just don't. I respect your actual respectful post in this regards and can see why you feel as you do. Until something comes forward, as much of the book can be disputed by current logic we have, I feel there's no real reason to take out 'parts' of the book to keep valid while others are held in earnest. I'm just not that way. And to me.. children get told God is real and Jesus died for our sins which were caused by God in the first place. They get told the stories of the Bible so cutely that it seems beautiful and inspiring and colorful. I find this to be more harmful than Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Stork, etc. Reading the real story and all, I was rather horrified at how bad the stories told in church school to kids are. That is the biggest lie of my life. To read the truth in both the Old Testament and New, It was nice to have the lie there of cute tales but the real Bible.. let's face it, it's not kid's stuff at all. To me, the cute stories are brainwashing and some people never read or do anything beyond knowing them how religious people want the masses to see them. Santa... he's a rotund, happy jolly guy that gives out presents to kids on winter solstice time and brings joy to kids. Finding out it's your parents doing it.. it still in its way is special and as said, sort of a coming of age so you can carry it on as a friendly thing. The cute Bible stories.. they are lies utterly because the real tales are nothing like the cute toned, sugar coated and watered down kid versions. Noah, Moses, David, Job, etc.. these aren't things to be proud of and I have no idea why people find them something they are willing to carry on. God cannot be a 'philosophical' concept. It is a religion. Philosophy asks questions and you don't even always expect an answer. Religion flat out -is- the answer, no questions need asking. What is Yahweh like? You know reading the book. How was the earth created? You know, reading the book. Why do women get painful monthlies and are subservient to men? You know by reading it. What are God's laws to get to Heaven? Again, you know. There really is little to no philosophy applied to Yahweh or Yeshua. It's all spelled out for you. Some people do think of philosophical ideals around a religion, sure, such as asking 'Does God exist?' and 'What does this passage mean to me?' or 'In this day and age, should a woman be wearing full head to toe attire or not?'. However, some people really don't want others doing that. I like how you say that you are not meant to lean on God. If only many other Christians believed that. Your views are those I wished so many others would follow if they are going to believe in a religion. It makes it possible to have others, regardless of religious views, to have some decent conversations and friends. Despite our different opinions, I know you're good people. I have friends like you and am glad to know them. We respect each other on so many other things that believing in religion or not, or having different religions does not really clash for us. It's awesome and someday I hope that more people will feel that a leap of faith to any belief, or choosing not to do it, doesn't make the person bad or good. The person is what they are by their actual actions, not their beliefs.
I would say that this choice is kind of difficult as it sometimes is not really an actual choice. Men and women today can decide that they wish to work for quite a few years at education and then solid occupations that take them places, move them around, etc. This for a time can make both happy. However, usually after doing this a while, most of these people probably do sooner or later want to actually have a family. Sometimes even some of the motivation for doing all that work is the right to decide later on to have and raise a family how you'd want to because you'd have enough saved up to take it easy doing so. Or perhaps a person doesn't want a family but seeks to retire early etc. I could never see myself in the second situation at all. I see this happen more to women that basically get stuck in the scenario or possibly a stay at home dad while the woman is off working often. For me personally though, the concept seems alien to imagine myself in. It's just not 'me'. So, though sometime I do want to get hitched and have a youngun or two, I could never really fit the second forced profile at all because it just seems unreal for someone like me. I would have to say the first one where I work my tush off and wander about etc making the money. Maybe I could be studly like Tony Stark or something and still get sex at least.
Life in a way is such a 'magical' experience. I've enjoyed exploring, researching, seeing and studying fossils, collecting rocks and minerals, walking around amidst nature, studying animals and plants and human history and anthropology, as well as genetics. I really love to do these things and find it fascinating to have the ability to not only read things but also contribute in the scientific community as well as broadening my knowledge base. It is for this reason, as well as studying religions and mythologies for years, that I can say I don't really think that there are these mysterious gods out there or one that runs the life cycle etc. To me, any current religion is also just a fanciful story, a mythology, a tall tale etc, and that what's really out there is what I want to focus on. I do like to study past mythos etc and I can find some 'human' lessons amongst them despite how much larger than life some beings have seemed. Some gods are cruel, others are amiable and care about humanity, others are selfish, pious, greedy, snobby, elite, friendly, loving, etc. The tales are human despite having an aura of magnificence to them when speaking of the deities themselves. Some deities even started out as real humans at one time that were elevated to godhood status. It is for this reason though, the human nature of the deities, that I cannot truly see them as real. The other reason of course... is proof. I have seen nothing in my life, with all the things I explore and research and have gone through, that leads me to currently buy into superior entities that can control such dire effects as the gods are said to. I'd be more inclined to believe in aliens than gods that are part of the fabric or -are- the fabric to existence and destruction, the very cycle of life. If I ever were to see actual proof beyond 'feelings' and taking some book or person's words to heart, then I would change my tune. If a god showed up and said some things and we could converse with it, sure thing. But none do. And then religious people say others are ignoring the signs. To me, gods are safety nets for people, imaginary friends and nothing really more than that. They have a power because people give them one, just as much as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny does. We know Santa and the Easter Bunny are figments which the hands behind them are the adults. It's kind of a coming of age to know these beings are just really your parents hiding Easter baskets or giving out presents once a year to those who are nice. However, they are endeared by some because it's a tradition that's harmless. Mythologies today are read by many people though only a very small percentage believe in them to this day. They are regarded as stories. I do not see the current religions as being more than this either because they have the same amount of 'proofs' that made Mythologies at one time real. In other words.. there are some values to learn, gods make for good storytelling and such, but there's just nothing out there that shows me there's anything more to it in this day and age. I can explain many phenomenon via understanding how it works and through examination. I was given a very cognitive brain and choose to use it rather than settle for the 'simple' answer. I cannot say -absolutely- there are no gods, but until I actually see proof, I can leave it open. I'm just pretty sure though that even if there were gods, they most likely aren't how humans describe them and they obviously don't want from us what some people want us to believe or by now we'd all be dead or they'd actually be part of our lives and leave nothing to question.
I am not sure there should be a 'law' on marriage at 18 but I can say I believe that people should not be getting married below 18 in a Western Society. It makes no logical sense, even if someone does get pregnant early on. Just because someone gets pregnant does not mean the person is mature enough to deal with the concept of marriage itself. They are in most cases not even able to deal with the pregnancy alone or just with the man being involved. If anything, I see it as often being a trap for a girl or sometimes women use pregnancy as an excuse to ensnare men. Boys and girls under the age of 18 in this day and age, in Western Societies have things they are obligated to do. They also cannot support themselves on their own. That is one of the concepts of marriage is that two people get married to live on their own and make choices with each other. How do teens do that when they also have responsibilities to their families and also need to go to school? They cannot hold full time jobs with all the requirements of today and cannot finish school and work a full time job. It's demanding families -must- take responsibility. Also, if a male or female can support themselves, they are well above the age of 21. The person has gone to college and has an actual occupation which would enable that male or female to take care of the significant other who is not of age to do so himself/herself. This causes entrapment because the other person is going to be co-dependent, in most cases. It may seem romantic and fun to go out with someone older, but often times boys and especially girls are misled because they do not know what the real world is like outside of school and that social circle. The older person will be making their choices and often times it isolates the other person from learning things on how to live on his/her own. With how marriages break up often, it really is not fair that this person who was married at younger than 18 (hell, in some cases, younger than 21+) that suddenly he, or more often she, doesn't know the ropes to what it's like to live on her own. Many women especially have been left in divorce scenarios where they could not survive on their own or with the kids that were left behind and money is not going to solve someone's problems of not knowing how to manage it or how to get new work etc and deal with the many problems of living single suddenly. The person gets a very big wake up call as their safety cushion is pulled from her rather violently. In older times, when women could not get the same education as a man, could not drive themselves around, could not do things on the same level as a man, sure, marriage prior to 18 was fine. After all... it was the -man's- job to take care of his family. Nowadays, men often cannot find work that allows them to be the -sole- benefactor for a family and a teenager always had a problem doing so. This is why older men often went to find young girls to marry. They were stable enough to do so. Teenage males had to go out and make something of themselves before considering marriage. So, I guess with the requirements it takes that people should think about when getting married such as being able to support each other, being able to love one another and have some place to go that isn't in the parents' basement, being able to be contributing members of society and being able to vote, both people getting a proper education so they both should they separate, can do something with their lives, etc... these things to me seem rather important to think about in a western society. It simply is not fair to people younger than 18 to get married and some people just seem to look at the romantic ideals behind it. If people cannot also view beyond the romance to sensibility, I think they're too young to be married and most marriages won't survive for people who don't have things set up decently ahead of time and face the reality that marriage takes drive to work. Even for those who do set up things in advance, marriages can fail... but at least they have more of a chance to survive after and don't have so many mental scars from the failure.
The list of reasons why we seperated from England(from the top of my head btw) 1. taxes 2. Church interference 3. Arrested for wrongs that are now illegal 4. Arrested for not paying debt 5. quartering troops into family homes. 6. can't be convincted of the same thing 2x The one thing you forgot to mention is locality in this list, which is what makes the situation different. The UK and U.S. both have significantly changed and the UK does not do certain things it did back then which caused the revolt. Time is different and the government of the UK is vastly separate of what it once was. 1. Taxes - No taxation without representation and such. Taxes were collected for the UK, went overseas and were distributed to where the UK sought it to be distributed. This meant that the colonial citizens often did not see their taxes at local work. They could also be taxed for nearly anything and sometimes even taxed multiple times for any lame reason on the same product etc. The leaders in the UK saw it as a cash hog, as did the Spanish and others too, and the colonists were not able to often keep up with the ridiculous taxes that were being introduced for whatever reason given. Yes, we have taxes still but these taxes are meant to go to programs and such to support the U.S. and we -can- argue some taxes if we want to by sticking together and lobbying. We have a way of getting involved in politics that was not possible with the UK overseeing. The governments in Europe on the whole were rather brutal. Everyone in this day and age has toned down but the taxation issue definitely is one of those things that has. 2. Religious/Church interference in the law and government - Yes, sometimes we have issues with religion rearing its head and it attempts to do things but we are also not under -one- religion, nor -one- church. Back then, England was ruled by a monarchy with the Catholic church having serious involvement in things. Protestantism was on the rise in the country and also in neighboring countries which were part of the UK at the time. Many colonists fled to not be persecuted by religion and the law to this day does hold true in most cases that religion in itself and one dominant church is not permitted to make our laws or uphold them. If you actually study law, the differences are quite remarkable for both the U.S. and the U.K. from back then. Yes, religion sometimes does involve itself in government, but definitely not to the level it did and we do not have one governing church. In fact, we are not -allowed- to by the Constitution. We can also debate and lobby against things that have to do with religion, etc. This would have been rather unheard of back then as the punishment for going against religion often meant going against the government, which could label you not only as a heretic but also a traitor. If someone today in either government is not a Catholic, Protestant etc, they cannot be also labeled a traitor. Also, marriages and such are not officially recognized legally until people fill out paperwork before a judge, whether married in a church or not. This is why, even if there is a debate over gay marriage, it was made legal in Vermont and other places do fight for it. The church cannot officially make anyone much of anything anymore. 3. Arrested for wrong doings that were against the UK or the religion, which at the time were the same, pretty much, were done. Also, with Puritanism, people were arrested and tortured, killed, branded, etc for various unfair crimes without a true court of law. Of course, both the U.K. and U.S. changed these things around in this day and age. 4. Arrested for not paying debt - There are many people in both countries now that owe money due to bounced checks, failure to pay etc. It can go to court though small fees seldom will and a person instead will just be harassed by financial companies until they pay. Also, you get the stab that your credit report is going to suck. When dealing with major debt owed if the payment is for say a house or car or some other property, the companies and banks can sue, take the items back legally etc. Seldom do people actually get arrested and jailed for debt anymore. It just makes life more difficult in other ways. It's just not common for people to be punished much more than that as in actual jail time. 5. Quartering troops in homes - This practice was done years ago but yes, was abolished in the U.S. I think I can safely say it was also removed from the U.K. as well later on. This doesn't refer to some country invading another country or wars happening. It refers to back in colonial times that British soldiers would move into an area and then by law had the right to distribute soldiers to houses of locals and they were to be taken care of, fed, allowed to bathe and rest in the local person's house. The practice had a lot of problems with it including thefts, rudeness, forcing oppression on the locals etc. Even if you think that the Iraq war is wrong, no soldier was permitted to stay at someone's residence and were waited on hand and foot. This law to this day is adhered to that also soldiers in the U.S. cannot stay in U.S. homes by force, nor any other nation's. 6. Can't be convicted of the same crime twice - There is a catch 22 to this but yes, you cannot be tried for the same crime twice in the -same- court of law if you are found innocent. Some things to consider when dealing with the rule of double jeopardy. - Same court twice. - This means that if a state court and a federal court want to charge the person, if the state court says the person is innocent, the federal court may still try the person under its own laws if a crime is seen as federal as well as state. This also deals with civil cases versus criminal cases too, as both imply different things. - Of course, if you are accused of a crime.. say aggravated assault against Steve, and are found innocent, yet after go beat on Steve, of course you can be convicted again because it is a new crime despite the similar circumstances. - If a charge is thrown out of court due to lack of evidence and new evidence later is found, because it was tossed out at the time and not given a guilty or innocent charge, it can be brought up again at a later time. This is due to having received no solid verdict in final judgment. Other than that, no one can be tried for the same crime twice once found innocent of the crime. Hope that clarifies some things for you.
Yep, you can post fan fiction there in the right area. Going to close this since it's been answered.
Girl gamers are great. So are girl roleplayers. It shows they have imagination and well, it's a way to spend time with them too as I like those things. It's hard to go out with someone who has very little of the interests you do for casual time. I can see why girls get annoyed at Halo and other games online. Halo offends a lot of people online. I get irritated with it because some people are just stupid on there and so I don't bother with the game anymore. Females though get really trash talked on there and some of the boys (or 40 year old guys) really say some mean things that just is uncalled for. I think there are more female gamers out there than people know of though some games are beginning to take notice of it and do things to include them in with game things. I have friends that are girls who get into the games that people assume are more 'male' oriented, which I think is cool. Maybe someday the boys (and men) will grow up some on games like Halo but I don't see it happening for a while.
