Ashamed to be Texan - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/10/2005 02:29:00 PM · #351

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by RonB:

The difference is that my judgements - of actions, not people - are not based on my own idea of morality - they are based on the "standard" by which I judge - that being scripture. And scripture has not changed in several thousand years.

Um, yes it has. Quite a few times actually. And the parts that different religious groups didn't like they edited out or omitted.

Um, no it hasn't. They stopped writing ancient Greek and Aramaic manuscripts a long time ago. Perhaps you are referring to different versions? or translations? or interpretations? Just because some group leaves out the 1st amendment when they publish their version of the Constitution, doesn't mean that the Constitution changed.

Yes, each version of the bible is a rewrite to suit the person or group doing the re-writing. During the second century (1800 years ago) The Gospel of Thomas was omitted by the newly forming Catholic Church. In fact, the entire group of Gnostic Texts were eventually viewed as heretical because they didn't fit the view of the world the Church wanted its members to have.

As for your constitution reference, if say Warren Harding decided he didn't like the first Amendment, burned ALL copies of the constitution with the first amendment in it, declared all people who believed in the first amendment as traitors to their country and ordered them killed, and allowed no word of the first amendment to be spoken, then I would see the parallel you are trying to draw.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/10/2005 02:48:37 PM · #352

Originally posted by notonline:

Originally posted by muckpond:
gay people wouldn't undo straight marriage. we'd outdo it.

Thats the problem with gays. They "think" they do everything better and in reality who cares. Each to his own.

But if nobody cares, why deny them the right to get married? it shuoldn't bother anyone then, right?

Anyways, I still think Muckpond is onto something. Thanks for the laugh muckpond!

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/10/2005 02:51:44 PM · #353

Originally posted by pidge:

I can't resist... sorry

And speaking of (skewed) humour, for those who missed it a few pages back and a shameless promotional bump

Must be off to study my non scientific science
Cheers everyone

SJCarter

11/10/2005 03:15:43 PM · #354

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by SJCarter:
On the contrary, I think I remember it just fine... Any other rebuttals?

No. I think I've rebutted enough for one night. But I would suggest that you ask your pharmacist about Ginkgo-Biloba. It's said that it improves ones memory.

Ron - Very nice line for line breakdown (on the 11/10/2005 12:45:15 AM post) in clarifying the correct passages. Thanks.

Yes, he did do a nice job. Thanks for the corrections.

Sorry, I was tired last night and got lazy and pulled from a poor source. :-) Today, I had a chance to make a more thorough search for the quotes I sought. I've included them here. Tear them apart if you'd like. I just wanted to correct myself.

My point was that there are antiquated practices "literally" represented in the Bible that we have chosen not to abide by any more. Why? According to your argument, we are going against the Word of God by doing so. You can't take the Bible literally where you want and subjectively where you want and then make a sound case for "literal" translations.

From the New International Version of the Bible

Deuteronomy 25: 11-13
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Matthew 5:30
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Mathhew 18:8
If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Mark 9:43
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

(couldn't find the verse about condemning dancing...)

Titus 2:3-5
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

Titus 2:9-10
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.

Please feel free to return to your rant... :-)

SJCarter

11/10/2005 03:26:51 PM · #355

And yes, muckpond - thank you for the BIG laugh! :-)

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

11/10/2005 03:27:09 PM · #356

Originally posted by ericlimon:

so... um. which one? do you believe none of them or all of them? maybe it's you that is a bit confused? Do you believe the bible is the word of god or not? can't you just say yes or no? your so full of double speak you don't even seem to know what you believe. I just don't get it ron. what bible do you follow and believe in? it's either all or nothing, because according to you, they are ALL the word of god.

I think you're quite confused on this Eric. Your apparent difficulty in understanding Ron's response is really based on a flaw or misunderstanding in your original challenge.

The "bibles" you listed are not different bibles, but different translations of (mostly) the same ancient source texts. So your question "which bible do you follow" makes no sense in comparison to the list you presented. That's why he says "all and none". No one current translation is always adequate (i.e. none). But each attempts to be a faithful representation of the original revealed texts (i.e. all).

In studying the bible I often use several of the translations you listed. Some are easier to read. Others use more scholarly language that give more depth. Some use a "literal" translation - translating more or less word for word. Others use another translation philosophy(the name escapes me at the moment) in which an attempt is made to grasp the contextual and cultural meaning of the words and phrases of the original texts. Usually, comparing several translations reveals different facets of the same message. Occasionally, the translations (which most Christians do not consider "infallable" in themselves) might provide seemingly conflicting or inconsistent results. In those cases, I'll go deeper, and seek to find out what the words were in the original language, then study up on the meaning and roots of the word.

Your belief (as I read it) that these are all "different" bibles is similar to two different translaters translating "War and Peace" to English, and then saying which one is the real "War and Peace". It is very unlikely that the two translations will be the same, and is quite likely that they will turn out quite different. They'll tell the same story, but probably with a different feel. So, which is the real "War and Peace"? Well, they both are, in the sense that they both are attempts to convey the same original text; and neither are, because really, the only "real" "War and Peace" is the Russian version written by Tolstoy.

I hope this helps clear this up for you. (Though I'm not sure you aren't just being argumentative. If you're not, then please forgive the implication.)

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/10/2005 03:27:09 PM · #357

Originally posted by ericlimon:

So basically, your comparing god with man. what you are saying here is that god is not all knowing, because if she (he) was, then god wouldn't have had to re-write his (her) will.

Not at all, but nice try to attribute to me that which I did not even imply. But, to your point:

As a father, I maintained certain rules for my young children that I did not maintain for those same children when they were older ( For example, I did away with the rule that they may not use matches or sharp knives ). The fact that I changed the rules makes me neither confused, nor ignorant ( not knowing ). In fact, I knew IN ADVANCE that I would change the rules at a later date. This is called forethought. And I am just a man. God is ALL knowing and His forethought is infinitely above anything that I can even imagine.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

But god did change her (his) will and therefore re-wrote the bible?

Again, your words, not mine. But to your point:
No, God did not change his will. His will always was and always will be the reconciliation of man to Himself. What he changed was the manner of Probate ( to use the same analogy ).

Originally posted by ericlimon:

That is about the stupidest thing i've heard.

No doubt - since it appears that you choose to not believe.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by ericlimon:
There seem to be so many versions to choose from. Which is the correct version that your god actually put out there for you to follow?

Originally posted by RonB:
"For me? All of them, and None of them"

"So for me, I can take my pick. Any one of them, studied under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will lead to correct thinking.

Or, I can pick none of them, and listen closely for the voice of the Holy Spirit alone."

so... um. which one? do you believe none of them or all of them?

Yes.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

maybe it's you that is a bit confused? Do you believe the bible is the word of god or not?

Yes

Originally posted by ericlimon:

can't you just say yes or no?

Yes.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

your so full of double speak you don't even seem to know what you believe. I just don't get it ron. what bible do you follow and believe in? it's either all or nothing, because according to you, they are ALL the word of god.

Which of the following newspapers do you believe in

a) The Los Angeles Times
b) The New York Times
c) The Washington Post
d) The Chicago Tribune
e) The Atlanta Journal Constitution
f) USA Today

That's enough, I think, though I should go on to list as many newspapers as you did bible versions.

Anyway, when you answer that question, I'll answer yours.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/10/2005 03:37:50 PM · #358

Originally posted by SJCarter:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by SJCarter:
On the contrary, I think I remember it just fine... Any other rebuttals?

No. I think I've rebutted enough for one night. But I would suggest that you ask your pharmacist about Ginkgo-Biloba. It's said that it improves ones memory.

Ron - Very nice line for line breakdown (on the 11/10/2005 12:45:15 AM post) in clarifying the correct passages. Thanks.

Yes, he did do a nice job. Thanks for the corrections.

Sorry, I was tired last night and got lazy and pulled from a poor source. :-) Today, I had a chance to make a more thorough search for the quotes I sought. I've included them here. Tear them apart if you'd like. I just wanted to correct myself.

My point was that there are antiquated practices "literally" represented in the Bible that we have chosen not to abide by any more. Why? According to your argument, we are going against the Word of God by doing so. You can't take the Bible literally where you want and subjectively where you want and then make a sound case for "literal" translations.

From the New International Version of the Bible

Deuteronomy 25: 11-13
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Still not "stealing", as you charged in your original post.

Originally posted by SJCarter:

Matthew 5:30
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Not "stealing", as you charged in your original post.

Originally posted by SJCarter:

Mathhew 18:8
If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Not "stealing", as you charged in your original post.

Originally posted by SJCarter:

Mark 9:43
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Not "stealing", as you charged in your original post.

Originally posted by SJCarter:

(couldn't find the verse about condemning dancing...)

Not surprised.

Originally posted by SJCarter:

Titus 2:3-5
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

Not "talking back to her husband" as you charged in your original post.

Originally posted by SJCarter:

Titus 2:9-10
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.

Slaves, not "woman talking back to her husband" as you charged in your original post.

Originally posted by SJCarter:

Please feel free to return to your rant... :-)

OK. Thanks.

Message edited by author 2005-11-10 15:39:12.

ralph

Nikon Z9

11/10/2005 03:40:41 PM · #359

of course

dog can marry & that is perfectly sane .... or how about
pandas
& i'm sure that that is ok .. but two men or two women who can verbalize their COMMITMENT ...no ..no no ..that is 'bad'

we are such a stupid spiecies ...

muckpond

Nikon D200

11/10/2005 03:46:49 PM · #360

ok, i understand that some people consider homosexuality "wrong." fine. i get it.

what i don't get is why those people feel the need to press their BELIEFS (and they are just that) on everyone else.

my being gay doesn't affect you one way or the other. if your heterosexual next-door neighbors are co-habitating but are not married, why aren't you up in arms about that? because it DOESN'T AFFECT YOU AT ALL.

you live your life. let me live mine. all i want is the same list of rights granted to everyone else in this country.

this is just flat-out insane.

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/10/2005 03:58:10 PM · #361

Using the bible as a reason to discriminate... NICE!

res0m50r

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/10/2005 04:01:40 PM · #362

Originally posted by louddog:

Using the bible as a reason to discriminate... NICE!

Im confused where did this happen?

persimon

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/10/2005 04:07:31 PM · #363

Originally posted by muckpond:

You have hit the nail on the head. They can disagree with homosexuality all they want - that is their right. What I don't get (like you said) is why on earth they are going to force everyone else to adhere to their beliefs by approving a constitutional ban!! Isn't it CRAZY??? How many marriages are publicized? Why on earth does it matter one iota that two men or two women get married. How many would even know? It just baffles me to no end why this is happening. It is not a matter of national security, public health, or environmental safety, yet now it is part of the constitution in this state!!! Do they care if two non-Christians get married? Are non-Christians as "bad" as homosexuals? Will there be another amendment later to ban anyone that isn't a Christian from getting married? Where does it end? Where is the logic?

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/10/2005 04:09:12 PM · #364

Originally posted by dahkota:

What you're refering to is the Council of Nicea, which actually took place in the fourth century, around 325AD. Among the problems that had occured by then was that there were many texts circulating which were not consistant with the doctrine put forth by Jesus (via the gospels) and the apostles. A perfect example was gnostic doctrine, as you mentioned. The primary falacy of the gnostic beliefs that I'm aware of is that they thought that flesh (i.e. the physical world) was completely corrupt and sinful. Two major "false" doctrines emerged from this:
- That Jesus was not a man, in physical flesh, but a spirit. This is absolutely contrary to all other writings in the new testament and one of the core foundations of Christ's message, which was that he was "God made flesh".
- That since flesh was hopelessly corrupt, it was not necessary to refrain from sin. This was also contrary to the teachings of both Jesus and the apostles. Jesus, in the sermon on the mount (perhaps in foreknowledge of the gnostic beliefs) specifically set an even higher standard for the believer in refraining from sin. (Some of these passages have been previously quoted in this thread.) And Paul and John at the very least, specifically refuted this idea in their letters.

I have to admit that I don't know much about the Gospel of Thomas, but what I have heard about it is in conflict with the included texts. Its interesting that many opponents of the bible try to argue about inconsistencies in the text. And yet, they will also make "conspiratorial" charges like this, when the texts mentioned contain far greater and more meaningful inconsistencies.

mrorange002

Canon EOS-5D

11/10/2005 04:25:03 PM · #365

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by ericlimon:
so... um. which one? do you believe none of them or all of them? maybe it's you that is a bit confused? Do you believe the bible is the word of god or not? can't you just say yes or no? your so full of double speak you don't even seem to know what you believe. I just don't get it ron. what bible do you follow and believe in? it's either all or nothing, because according to you, they are ALL the word of god.

I think you're quite confused on this Eric. Your apparent difficulty in understanding Ron's response is really based on a flaw or misunderstanding in your original challenge.

The "bibles" you listed are not different bibles, but different translations of (mostly) the same ancient source texts. So your question "which bible do you follow" makes no sense in comparison to the list you presented. That's why he says "all and none". No one current translation is always adequate (i.e. none). But each attempts to be a faithful representation of the original revealed texts (i.e. all).

Your belief (as I read it) that these are all "different" bibles is similar to two different translaters translating "War and Peace" to English, and then saying which one is the real "War and Peace". It is very unlikely that the two translations will be the same, and is quite likely that they will turn out quite different. They'll tell the same story, but probably with a different feel. So, which is the real "War and Peace"? Well, they both are, in the sense that they both are attempts to convey the same original text; and neither are, because really, the only "real" "War and Peace" is the Russian version written by Tolstoy.

I hope this helps clear this up for you. (Though I'm not sure you aren't just being argumentative. If you're not, then please forgive the implication.)

I'll address this first Scott.

Your partly wrong. Many of these versions have different books included. Not just different translations.

Here's an example:
The following are the books in the King James Version:
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalm
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

These are the books of the World Wide English Version
MATTHEW
MARK
LUKE
JOHN
ACTS
ROMANS
1 CORINTHIANS
2 CORINTHIANS
GALATIANS
EPHESIANS
PHILIPPIANS
COLOSSIANS
1 THESSALONIANS
2 THESSALONIANS
1 TIMOTHY
2 TIMOTHY
TITUS
PHILEMON
HEBREWS
JAMES
1 PETER
2 PETER
1 JOHN
2 JOHN
3 JOHN
JUDE
THE REVELATION

Now, are these different bibles? Are they the same bibles? Does the second version have the same stuff in it as the first version?

res0m50r

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/10/2005 04:39:56 PM · #366

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Here's an example:
The following are the books in the King James Version:
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalm
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

These are the books of the World Wide English Version
MATTHEW
MARK
LUKE
JOHN
ACTS
ROMANS
1 CORINTHIANS
2 CORINTHIANS
GALATIANS
EPHESIANS
PHILIPPIANS
COLOSSIANS
1 THESSALONIANS
2 THESSALONIANS
1 TIMOTHY
2 TIMOTHY
TITUS
PHILEMON
HEBREWS
JAMES
1 PETER
2 PETER
1 JOHN
2 JOHN
3 JOHN
JUDE
THE REVELATION

Now, are these different bibles? Are they the same bibles? Does the second version have the same stuff in it as the first version?

This was addressed in the discussion earlier about translation. The Bible's original language is not English. The second book is simply the new testament only, not to be confused with the new covenant. If someone wants to buy just the new testament they can as easily as they could buy just the old testament. I know many people that like to carry around a Bible in their pocket. Based on what your saying if I understand you is that they have an incorrect version because it was reprinted smaller and to only include the new testiment chapters?

Message edited by author 2005-11-10 16:42:23.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/10/2005 04:55:41 PM · #367

Originally posted by muckpond:

because it DOESN'T AFFECT YOU AT ALL.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Nov. 3, 2005:
"We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

Story here.

Taken in a societal context, it does effect me. Several posters have brought up several of the countless media-circus mockeries made of marriage in recent years with comments like "how come you don't cry out against that?" Believe me, we do. But lets look back in how we got there in the first place. Decades of your very statement - "it doesn't affect you". We're free to put whatever we want on TV because "it doesn't affect you". We're free to parade our debauchery in front of the world but you can't judge us because "it doesn't affect you".

But every day that I walk out the door with my daughter, who I'm trying to raise to have respect for herself and her body, and we're confronted by the slutty perverts that haunt the billboards, malls and schools. We're assaulted by bumper stickers with all sorts of filth that mocks the very concept of free speach. We're bombarded with all sorts of filt masqaurading as music, glorifying every sort of degenerate action. But don't you dare judge me - "it doesn't affect you".

And now the 9th Circus Court has declared I have no right to control this onslaught of garbage that your "liberated" society wants to shove down her throat every day, all in an attempt to mold her into your image.

And if I dare speak out or speak my mind, you belittle and deride me. Go ahead, I can take it. But don't you dare say it DOESN'T AFFECT ME. It DOES affect me. Every single day.

THIS world of yours is just flat-out insane.

res0m50r

Canon EOS-30D

11/10/2005 05:02:38 PM · #368

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by muckpond:
because it DOESN'T AFFECT YOU AT ALL.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Nov. 3, 2005:
"We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

Story here.

Taken in a societal context, it does effect me. Several posters have brought up several of the countless media-circus mockeries made of marriage in recent years with comments like "how come you don't cry out against that?" Believe me, we do. But lets look back in how we got there in the first place. Decades of your very statement - "it doesn't affect you". We're free to put whatever we want on TV because "it doesn't affect you". We're free to parade our debauchery in front of the world but you can't judge us because "it doesn't affect you".

But every day that I walk out the door with my daughter, who I'm trying to raise to have respect for herself and her body, and we're confronted by the slutty perverts that haunt the billboards, malls and schools. We're assaulted by bumper stickers with all sorts of filth that mocks the very concept of free speach. We're bombarded with all sorts of filt masqaurading as music, glorifying every sort of degenerate action. But don't you dare judge me - "it doesn't affect you".

And now the 9th Circus Court has declared I have no right to control this onslaught of garbage that your "liberated" society wants to shove down her throat every day, all in an attempt to mold her into your image.

And if I dare speak out or speak my mind, you belittle and deride me. Go ahead, I can take it. But don't you dare say it DOESN'T AFFECT ME. It DOES affect me. Every single day.

THIS world of yours is just flat-out insane.

Well said and very much to the point! Fully agree.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/10/2005 05:05:42 PM · #369

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Now, are these different bibles? Are they the same bibles? Does the second version have the same stuff in it as the first version?

OK, c'mon, now your being silly. Did you even look at the list? The first includes both new and old testament. The second only include the new testament. (I'm not familiar with the World Wide English Version, but it may be that the translators that created that version only chose to translate the new testament. Otherwise, you are probably just looking at a printing that only includes the new testament - this is sometimes done for "pocket" printings and the like.) But the second list is identical to the end of the first list. So yes, apart from questions of whether one translation is accurate or not, the second version contains a subset of the same stuff in the first.

BTW, if you have a specific question or point to make, what is it? It just feels like you're "sparring" around, but never quite getting to, some point or issue.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

11/10/2005 05:16:13 PM · #370

Scott,

I must admit that this is the post I really like, and I can really agree with you - mostly. However, ask yourself: how many gays and lesbians did you notice walk out of the city halls married in the past 20 years (except for the recent media frenzy and sensationalism caused by the prohibition)? Amd how many naked women/men, Paris Hilton reality shows etc. do you watch on a daily basis on TV etc? What is the real problem here - and what is the solution?

As long as the most viewed show is the show about housewives screwing around, and similar, there is nothing that adding prohibition to the constitution would do to improve the situation.

Where we disagree is, the constitution amendment is not the proper path. Check out the 18th and 21st amendments of the federal constitution to see how well it worked in the past.

So, leave the laws alone. That's not the way to go. I don't know what is, but forcing it on people is only going to make it worse.

-Serge

dahkota