Obviously I have shown that to be false.

This site does not permit profanity, regardless of how you attempt to justify it.

This site is owned, run, monitored and administered by Christians of various denominations. It also elicits the support of Christian and family organizations. It is also picked up as a news site.

As such, I don’t permit profanity. If you don’t approve, too bad; go elsewhere.

Why did you not address any of my other questions:

Because right now I’m am pretty busy. I live on a farm and this time of year keeps my time at a premium.

Additionally, to answer your question would require an extensive explanation of Old Testament Law, God’s covenants with his people at various times for various reasons. Which would lead us to the New Testament and the new covenant.

That’s alot of work to waste on someone who clearly is ignorant of the matter and obviously wishes to remain ignorant.

Why did you not address any of my other questions:
“Thankfully, the First Ammendment gives me the right and freedom to worship ANY god I choose. Or to NOT worship any god at all.

I guess here’s some better examples: Where is the civil law that prohibits me from eating shellfish, or swine? (Lev 11:10) Or where is the civil law allowing me to sell my daughter into slavery? (Exodus 21:7) Or to buy slaves from neighboring countries? (Lev. 25:44) Or forbidding me to cut my hair? (Lev 19:27)

Stop believing and start thinking for yourself. “

Up until Lawrence v. Texas, it was illegal in many, if not most, jurisdictions.

Did you consider homosexuality immoral then?

He has no right to be general.

His rank is based on merit and military qualification, not his personal viewpoint.

If his viewpoint was that homosexual acts were moral and acceptable, would you then say he had a right to be a General?

(why did God create gay sheep?)

He didn’t! He created sheep.

I’m asking you as a believer how you justify it.

The earth is corrupted and all that is in it.

And…

Romans 1:18-32

No problem

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger criticized Wikipedia in late 2004 for having an “anti-elitist” philosophy of active contempt for expertise.[1] Some librarians, academics, and editors of other encyclopedias consider it to have little utility as a reference work.[2] Many university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources;[3] one university program and several schools (including Cranbrook School Sydney) have even banned Wikipedia citations specifically.[4]

One caveat which Wikipedia acknowledges is that it should not be used as a primary source for serious research.[8] Still, the lack of authority, accountability, and peer review have all been sources of criticism. For example, librarian Philip Bradley acknowledged in an October 2004 interview with The Guardian that the concept behind the site was in theory a “lovely idea,” but that he would not use it in practice, and that he is “not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window.”[9]

Criticism of Wikipedia

The Gay Gene?

Common, normal, whatever you want to call it.

There is a distinction and it is not dependent on what I want to call it!

Another point is that the 10C’s civil commands are themselves derived
from Hammurabian law. Strictures against theft and murder are no-
brainers for stability in any culture, and it’s just silly to
think that it was the Hebrews’ tribal war god that thought of it
first.

By the way, the quote lobo cites at the end from the Florida Supreme
Court is wrong on a very important point: There is one fundamental
that our Founding Fathers came up with that can’t be in any way
co-opted by religionists who insist on injecting religion into every
aspect of secular life: the concept of democracy itself, which is
not only absent from the bible (as it is from all “sacred” texts,
actually) but runs completely contrary to the bible’s uniform
advocacy of authoritarianism.

This civil prohibition against blasphemy and profanity drawn from the Decalogue continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.

I will also add…

Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing:

“Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.”

In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law:

The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.

The court then noted that its State’s laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:

The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to “revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . ” He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.

The Decalogue’s influence on profanity and blasphemy laws was reaffirmed by subsequent courts, such as the 1921 Supreme Court of Maine, the 1944 Supreme Court of Florida, and others.

Many additional sources may be cited, but it is clear that the civil laws against both profanity and blasphemy-many of which are still in force today-were originally derived from the divine law and the Ten Commandments. These examples unquestionably demonstrate that the third commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.

However, the Decalogue clearly is more than just a religious code. It-in its entirety-provides the base for much of America’s common law. As the Supreme Court of North Carolina declared in 1917:

“Our laws are founded upon the Decalogue, not that every case can be exactly decided according to what is there enjoined, but we can never safely depart from this short, but great, declaration of moral principles, without founding the law upon the sand instead of upon the eternal rock of justice and equity.”

In 1950, the Florida Supreme Court similarly declared:

“A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue . . .”

What do you base that statement on AJ?
**********************
It is against the law in most Muslim countries is it not?

The general has no right stating what he thinks is immoral and what isn’t.

The General has sworn an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and you have the audacity to say he isn’t entitled to the free speech he and the Constitution protects?
**********************
I take it back, he has a right to say it. He has no right to be general.

It isn’t a crime, so it isn’t immoral.

Muslims can determine what is and isn’t immoral, Atheist Jews can determine what is and isn’t immoral, but God and Christians can’t determine what is or isn’t immoral?
**************************
What is moral and immoral? If it is illegal to be a homosexual in the USA, then the USA is no better than an Islamic country. If it is legal, then there is nothing wrong with gays being in the military.

That’s pretty incredible! How did you arrive at that?

(why did God create gay sheep?)

The bigger question is; why is an Atheist asking “why did God create gay sheep”?
*************************
I’m asking you as a believer how you justify it. I justify gay sheep because homosexuality occurs in nature frequently and is therefore natural.

Current scientific finding lean to the fact that it occurs during fetal development.

Then you’ll have no problem posting the link to your sources that support your claim!
*******************
No problem

It is more normal than red headedness.

Did you mean it is more common than being red-headed, or more common than brain damage?
*******************
Common, normal, whatever you want to call it.

Responding to Lobo: I notice that the laws you cite are pre-
revolutionary colonial laws, all of which were rendered moot upon
the adoption of the Constitution, which is notably secular.