I concocted a really long winded polite reply to Majics' statements, and everyone else who was randomly supporting him as though I had committed some kind of moral atrocity against him by refusing to respond to his baseless argument, but I decided there was really very little point when all I needed to say was this:

Prove it. Get a British law and prove it. Quote historical archives and facts about British law and prove your point.

Otherwise, leave it alone and quit wasting my time with your futile arguments.

That's all I needed to say, but it's not all I want to say. Y'know, it really irritates me when people act like they're the expert on everything, and then later claim that knowing what they're talking about is merely a minuscule and irrelevant detail which they can omit at their leisure without harming the credibility of their argument. Believe me, you are at NO risk of harming the credibility of your argument, your argument already has zero credibility.

You know how your argument comes off to me Majic? Well, in case you don't, I'll demonstrate it for you:

Yeah, ok let's all just nod in agreement. Majic must be right because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and anybody who doesn't know what they're talking about MUST be right. That makes perfect sense. I mean, look at George Bush - he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he can run the USA!

You know what? I don't even want to say all this because I know I'll get flak for it, but frankly I'm fed up with holding back from kicking idiots like you in the gonads. You deserve every last little ounce of humiliation you get for being a complete and utter prick. Get your big head out of your curryhole. You don't know everything, and claiming that you don't doesn't make your point more valid. I'm not going to exercise any restraint on you just because you're a mod, and I'm not going to play nice, because I'm fed up with being pissed on by morons who don't even read the posts I go to so much trouble to create.

Yeah why do you think they elected bush. Alcar if you are still out there I got a question for you since your a Catholic. See I went to a catholic elementy and middle school, and I know all about transfiguration that the catholics beleave in, this is know coming from some one who was raised in a Lutheran enviroment, where do you get pergitory (or the hell with how you spell it). No really where is that founded, or do you beleave in that part

I know, mawk, that your comment there was not directed at that quote, but my point is Majic is not talking about British law specifically.

Bible: thou shalt not murder
States law: No conduct of murder shall be tolerated under the states
Instict:If murder causes suffering of the victim or of those close to him or her it is wrong because I wouldn't want it happening to me.
But outside of this, America was founded on "God fearing" men, but at that time they were spit to the british, of coarse it was morale of taxation without representation that fueled them

I'm not going to quote a british law 'cos I know stuff all about the law over there. I will reference legal discussions that have been going on the last few years.

#1: Abortion. Virtually all discussion on abortion centers around religion. Religious groups claim that the fetus is a living being so abortion counts as murder. Admittedly I don't know of a western nation that has completely outlawed abortion but don't you think Bush would ban it if he could?

#2 Stem Cell Research using embryos. This was a huge issue for governments all over the world and has been banned in the US. The only objections are from religious groups. The embryos in question are small clumps of cells created by IVF (or in other words, they're potential test-tube babies). They have been frozen barely a few hours after conception and are no longer wanted by the parents as they have successfully given birth (they fertilise more embryos than are needed in case the first lot fail). Currently these are thrown away (and thus die anyway) but they could be useful in life-saving stem cell research. And yet religious groups have successfully lobbied the US government to ban research using embryos.

Does that count as religion influencing law making to you?

Hence, what I'm talking about. Your own previous statement follows what I'm trying to say. This ties into the fine examples produced by Nate. Abortion isn't strictly banned simply because our boy Jesus said so. But the chances are, there will always remain tough opposition from religious groups who would cringe at the loosening of laws. Thus, there's influence from a religious populous, but differences far and away from Biblical say-so.

Knowing the specifics of British law regarding abortion is entirely irrelevant, as religious influence on controversial topics is an international situation. No matter what the location, conflict of interest regarding abortion is always going to stay the same.

But of course, many Christians only designate themselves pro-life because I say so. Political parties only display bias on topics, due to influence from pastors and the like, because I say so. Voters only matter in elections and other important issues because I say so.

Mawk, you want me to prove my opinions with text from British law, something I don't have, and I don't feel compelled to locate. Why? Because my argument is not dependent on laws. It's dependent on what makes the laws. AKA, voters and politicians. Voters and politicians are people, logically. People are influenced by religion, as displayed by topics such as abortion and stem cell reasearch.

Therefore, religion plays a subtle, but important, role in politics everywhere.

I ask of you, again, to tell me how on earth people don't affect their own government. Searex also asked you to answer. Yet, both of your posts after my question are centered around insults, and the impression your precious British law somehow proves me wrong. Your next post can be filled with as many insults, curse words, and as much lack of restraint as you want.

With the condition that you answer my question with a direct response, preferably.

And sometimes people can screw up things by saying God told them to in some cases
Example: War of Roses, Crusades

Allah tells Muslims to kill the "Heathen Westerner's". If they die in combat they go straight to the afterlife and are greeted by 14 virgin slaves, or some similar bullshit. That's why terrorists are not afraid to be suicide bombers.

But seriously, Atheists can do whatever the hell they want. With or without the law. Strict Christians will go to hell for looking at an attractive girl and thinking: "Damn, she's fine. I'd F*ck her!"

According to numerous interviews with apparently random American people, a lot of Americans believe what they're doing in the Middle East is a crusade against Muslims, and that they are doing it under God's wishes.

Such a funny stereotype is presented to us.

Can't we leave our American friends alone. They're already stereotyped too much by the British media as dumb, hamburger munching, obese, Baseball cap wearing, really strong accented, religious, patriotic New Yorkers.

Same goes for Aussies, the Fosters adverts really take the pee out of 'em.

I tell Americans to stop ragging on the British to, they have all kinds of names for British that are not what you would call polite, But the insults are none as bad here in America than the insults they have for the French, but I would mention any of the insults because I beleave none of them. Happy trails

I've never heard of what people call the british, like where some people call americans Yankies i've never heard one for the british

Well I can list some but take note I don't beleave these
Names like of coarse panzy a** brits, jack tot (Hell knows what that means),
But there are also sterotypes, once again I don't beleave these but these are what I have heard constantly,
titles like, un-moral, greed corrupted, time takers, sexually free to public,
But there are good titles, I envy you Brits cause you can see Medieval castles whenever you want, you can touch history of 600 years ago if so much as desire, If someone wanted to do me a favor they could post a picture of one of those Medieval castles

I could try but im not promising anything, The castles here are really great England is so... old. To be honest though id rather live somewhere more modern, Like Japan.

I would always wnat to go back to Ireland to visit my relatives, they have some pretty neat castles there, my Scotish family, the Sutherlands own a castle but I have never seen it. But if you could post a picture that would be awsome

Okay, the term 'panzy ass' is used to describe anyone, who someone thinks is a panzy. It's not built to be used with the 'brits' suffix.

http://images.google.com.au/images?s...castle+britain

(google, the answer to all life's questions :D )

In some cases yes. It's also true that we drink lots of tea, instead of coffee! I thought the most silly thing was "quaint" about everywhere in England.

Yes this is true, but in the US thry only use the term panzy when they describe brits, they may also attach a long stream of insults to it, once again I don't beleave this again
Nate thanks for the google link, I suppose I could have attempted to do it myself but I'm far to lazy, or is it busy, ah anyway
yeah Rich I agree, when I went to the UK I found it funny to see Tea stores rather than Coffee shops. I heard some people collect different types of tea, is this true?