Wow you really don't have much solid arguments now that you start calling me a religious zealot to justify your stereo type of me. I really don't see the point in carrying on this off topic debate here in this thread. It is derailing the thread and really pointless considering your view about marriage not being controlled by the state, I completely agree.

As for my opnion on your New South Wales premier I can't really comment since I have no freaking clue what your ethic classes teach or even for that matter what is being taught in the scripture classes. Am I happy? I have no clue and since I am not really even a Conservative outside of Canada I really can't form an opinion.

To be honest I vote Conservative in Canada and would vote Democrat in the US, it all depends on the different views of the politician. I'm not a stereo typical Conservative infact a recent survey and poll I filled out classified me as a center right, barely to the right and another called me a center left. So being a right wing fanatic isn't exactly correct.

Since you don't actually know me outside of my position on marriage and abortion you have no right to stereo type me. Just like I can't call you a left wing socialist nut job you have no right to call me a Conservative Religious zealot.

Again just because we have different viewpoints doesn't mean we should attack each other. Theirs something called civil conversation, this is a debate.

Please stop stereotyping me, I don't stereo type you and it gets way out of hand to do so on either of our behalfs!

Ethics classes teach the establishment of moral udgement based on logic. For instance, stealing removes capital from the storeowner, thus raises the price so everyone else pays. Therefore, stealing is wrong. Scriptre uses the pathos method of persuasion to achieve this. (ie. Don't steal or you'll go to hell). Ethics is prefereable to me, because it gives understanding behind why things are wrong, but now NSW children will not be able to learn it, thanks to the Christian Democratic Party holding the state hostage in order to forcibly pass their ideals on in school. I apologise if I soudned more agressive than normal yesterday, but you must understand that this is an issue that infuriates me.

I don't generally "stereotype" without good reason, but let's look at the evidence, shall we?:

1. You're incredibly against the use of a word......a word and nothing more, for use in gay marriage.

2. You're reluctant to study the proven facts behind the origins of the Earth.

3. You seem to be very comfortable with the constitution containing the phrase of the use of "God's laws"

Now I don't say "oh he goes to church, therefore he's a religious zealot", but even you have to admit that that's a decent amount of evidence, and if th shoe fits....

On the other hand, you're not particularly innocent, either. Your claim to Atheist being a religion because of atheist houses being built? You're generalising the Atheist community, which are in fact in more than one group. The minority do the things you claim. The majority want nothing to do with the term religion itself, until substantial evidence tips in favour of a particular belief. It's like generalising that all muslims are terrorists, or all catholics are child molestors. Every group has it's bad eggs. Don't go generalising the entire group like that.

I'm well aware of the (unfortunate) influence Fox News has in the US.

As for Kosovo, that's an ethnic issue, and really has nothing to do with terrorism. If there's any terrorism involved, it's SEPARATIST terrorism, which I've already mentioned is the primary form of terrorism present in Europe.

Its also a religious issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azbZ0Dp4CHA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?=AuqCQTMSfPE&feature=related   (this one is in serbian)

YEs, it's part of the separatist movement. It would be no different than Irish terrorists attacking an Anglican church.

Well as far as whether scripture or ethics should be taught I don't see why they couldn't be taught side by side or together in a single class. Also wondering why scripture is taught at all in public school, here in Canada we have a form of seperation of church and state and I think if your going to teach one faith you should teach all faiths or none at all. I believe in fair representation and equal treatment of all faiths and beliefs. This means I would have to agree with you, Scripture should have been dropped if a church or parents want to teach their kids the scriptures they have the right to do so and should. If you were talking about private school I think both Scripture and ethics should be taught together as the Bible does say plenty of things regarding ethics.

As for the party name actually saying Christian in it, I don't think that it is right. In Canada we have the Conservative Party which was formed by the Christian Reform Party as well as other parties. We just decided that it was discriminatory and wrong to have a party that only represents one faith in a country with many faiths and cultures. So Conservative Party members are often Christian but we have Muslim, Sihk and even Athiest members and I still support the party whole heartedly. Also the American Republican Party often seen as Christian like wise is not. I think in a civilized state no faith or religion should be forced on anyone by their Government. I just believe that everyones rights to faith and religion be respected and protected by that Government. You may not understand my idealogies because your country doesn't appear to be much like mine. You base your critique of Christians and Conservatives based on the Conservative Christian's in your country.

Its like judging buddhists based on one country. If Buddhists in Thailand are like this then Buddhists in Japan must be as well. Cultures and beliefs differ from country to country. So do laws and such even Christians don't act the same in all countries. Hopefully everywhere they love their neighbours and do good to those that hurt them (As it says in the Bible) but I have recently run into Christian's who think drastically different beliefs. So judging me and stereotyping me as what you see in your country is very wrong. Sure I may have some of the same values but I do have my own unique beliefs.

To be honest I think in public schools their should be a religions class where the class teaches students about say 20 different religions a year. I think its important for young people these days to see all the beliefs and choose one themselves rather then having one forced down their throats.

As for me believing Athiesm is a religion and faith based belief system. Your facts aren't anything new and they still don't discredit creationism. The Bible and some other religious books of other beliefs don't explain how God made the earth. So even if we could prove earth came from a dying star or what ever it still wouldn't prove a single thing. Science can't do anything to prove or disprove the unseen or things based on creation. If we could even prove Evolution is how life began that doesn't mean God didn't use evolution. Infact the Catholic Church alone has over a dozen different theories on how the earth came to be and life on it. If you include scientific theories from protestant scientists your number of theories jump way even futher.

Fact is I am not denying facts. I just don't see anything that proves my beliefs false. As for proving them true I can't do that either but neither can you or anyone else. Its pointless to try and convert people to each others beliefs against their will because honestly our beliefs require just as much faith in the unknown as theirs.

Infact I have alot of respect for Agnostics people who just admit they don't know. Now I am 97% sure of my beliefs sure I have doubts some times but I'm sure. But that is faith that agnostics and athiests don't have. So Agnostics and many athiests base their beliefs on science. I just find it much more logical and admirable to admit "Their could be a God, maybe not. I just don't know" rather then saying something like "Their is no God" because fact is nobody can prove or disprove the existance of a God!

Am I proud of the fact that my constitution mentions God. Hell yah I am because the country was founded on the belief in God and the laws in the Bible. Its a great part of our heritage and while I agree with seperation of church and state I still believe that we should conserve protect and admire our roots. If you know me I am a very patriotic Canadian I love my country and everything about it. I am also a Conservative so it makes sense that I would be proud of my countries heritage.

As for me caring so much about a word. The word is based on religious values whether those be mine or Islamic or Jewish or what ever other beliefs system. The word is not just a word its something to be respected and treated well it holds alot of value to those who have religious beliefs. According to the Bible and Torah Marriage as a term is a bond between a man and wife solidified by God. Now even if the Government stopped recognizing marriage I would still want to get married. Why? Because it is a religious institution and a move made under God it holds alot of value to me. To you and many others it is simply a word but the cultural and religious ramifications of that word are very valuable to others. So yah to you its just a word but to me it means so much more, you couldn't possibly understand without being in my shoes or those of other believers in the Abrahamic or other faiths!

I would actually be for that too. Unfortunately, most governments consider it too costly to teach all, so they generally say "well, let's just go with the one that is the most popular", which misses the point entirely.

Actually, I base a lot of it from the christian movements in the US. The church here plays very little part in politics, but this issue is what I regard, the most desperate attempt I've seen to forcibly teach religion in schools without direct competition. the Liberal Party (it's a conservative party here) is  in power at the state level. However, they Senate is hung, so all acts passed require approval by the few independents in there. One of them happens to be the Christian Democrats, who essentially blackmailed the Liberal Party, saying they will only vote for the Liberal Party proposal to slug the pay of public servants if they voted to remove ethics classes from schools, essentally leaving scripture  with no competition. He even started to call ethics dangerous, stating they were the foundation tools of Nazism and Socialism. Generally, our politics are relatively partisan, but this is starting to remind me of the radical extremism I've been witnessing lately in US politics.

It's not meant to (well, in the majority Atheism at least). I just like to think of it as Atheists are ones who need the proof to be convinced. None of them know the true origins. I myself have cofortable theories how earth was created, how life was created, but that can only go back so far. The universe could have been the work of a higher power, or an accident possibly caused as an elastic reaction from a collapsing previous universe repeating itself. However, when evidence starts becoming clear, that's when I'll make my choice.

Maybe that makes me Agnostic, I don't know. I never thought about it.

So what if there's a religion that permits gay marriage? Would that suddenly make it permissable? What if a religion allowed polygamy, or incest, or bestiality? I mean, Im okay with what people worship themselves, but where does the line get drawn?

Well you see their is a religion that permits polygamy etc...etc...

I think in such cases its up to the church and other religious organisations to recognize or not recognize those marriages. As you said marriage is a word. Also the clear definition of marriage is between a man and woman Biblically and according to the Quran and almost every other religious text if not all of them.

Infact if a religion decided to marry a gay couple I wouldn't be that much against it because I am not from that faith and nobody is being forced to recognize it, nor will most churchs or religions do so.

Mormon's have polygamist marriages all the time, infact they have under age marriages all the time as well. These marriages aren't recognized by the state or other faiths. We only get upset when under age children are used and abused. But you know what our Government and many others don't give a dang if the religious organisation marries a man to many wives, these marriages aren't recognized by the state and they shouldn't be.

Theirs a case before our courts here in British Columbia Canada on whether polygamist marriage should be legal. The court actually tossed out the charges saying they were religious persecution. If a religious organisation wants to marry a couple and that organisation has no legal authority and is simply doing so before God. Then thats up to them.

In the end polygamist marriages are pretty much legal here in Canada now. Again yah if a religious sect wants to marry a gay couple sure they can. I won't recognize it neither would almost every religious organisation and the state shouldn't recognize any marriage (They should just stay out of it).

I'm just saying Marriage is a religious institution and should stay that way!

A lot of the more liberal Christian churches would actually be happy to recognize and perform gay marriages. I agree with the idea that the government should not recognize any marriage - only civil unions - and marriages should be performed by whoever wants to perform it.

Sadly for me it isn't about whether I approve of my president or even his administration; I don't have much faith in my country no matter who's running it.