The difference between Democrats and Republicans

[Burt Blade]

Democrat: "You are stupid. We have to restrain you, for the collective good."

Republican: "You are evil. We have to restrain you, for the collective good."

Libertarian: "You are free. Restrain yourself from harming others, or suffer the consequences in restitution or fatal gunshot wounds."

 

[BigG]

Burt Blade: You forgot on Libertarian - "we surrender to the foreign power who occupies our free country while we are busy trying to sue each other out of existence."

 

[RealGun]

Just about none. They both put up issues to distract the masses, and then use the smoke screen to steal a few liberties and up taxes a little bit more. One slice at a time. - RevDisk

I think you know better. Fashionable sentiments, I know, but this sounds like another dumb, desparate LP thread. Either that or DU trolling, which I know doesn't include you.

A simple awareness of GOA ratings will point out the difference in parties that should concern us a lot here. Yes, the bigger picture may be a different matter. I am not happy either.

It will be a long time before I forget how partisan the voting was in early 2004, while the Senate was entertaining all the gun control amendments to the gun manufacturers lawsuit protection bill. How does one forget the frothing rants of Ted Kennedy trying to outlaw rifle ammo, anything capable of peircing body armor? He was serious!

 

[GT]

RealGun +1

I seriously don't understand how you could be pro gun and vote Democrat.


G

 

[richyoung]

Then send your kid to a christian school, there are plenty of them providing those services.

I am compelled to fund the PUBLIC school, and I expect, at a minimum, the same consideration given a Wiccan or Muslim in the same circumstances. Or else fully fund my school choice with vouchers, (and see how fast public schools change their stripes!)

The founders never intended for courts to make decisions based on the bible or the 10 commandments. If they had they would have included them in constitution.

Yes, they did. Both the House and Senate have chaplains, (as do the Armed Forces), and open their sessions with prayer - Christian prayer. The Supreme Court opens it sessions with "God bless this court" - AND they have Moses holding the Ten Commandments in a frieze that decorates their building. The President is sworm in with a Christian Bible, as are court witnesses. Even our money has "In God We Trust" on it -( might as well, they took the gold out of it!). True, no mention of it is in the Constitution - but it sure is in the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers would look at you as if you were from Mars if you were to tell them to their faces that the U.S. WASN'T established as a Christian country, and that the Ten Commanndments AREN'T the basis of law.


Quote:
Private accounts are an affort to GRANT some rights to individuals, in lieu of what SHOULD happen, the abolition of the illegal, extra-constitutional Ponzi scheme masquerading as the government retirement program, Social Security.

Because just up and getting rid of SS is going to happen in one term of government.

Face it the Repubs curled up in the fetal position on this issue.

At least they tried - a war happens to have got them sidetracked a little. How have the Dems hekped on this issue? They won't even admit there is a problem!

Quote:
...I do beleive 'tis the Repubs pushing this, again in lieu of abolition., (for which the Yellow Dog Democrats will never support)

I

believe Bush originally talked of completely replacing the tax system. Now we are just going to tweak it.

The repubs are in the process of curling up into the fetal position on this.

again, the Dem position? (Other than the Jedi Mind Trick - "There IS no problem - these aren't the droids you're looking for...")

The boarders -- nothing. Bush even threw the idea out there that the Minute men were acting illegally, and were somehow violating human rights.

Yeah - he paid lip service to the race hustling mau-maus - but he DID nothing, just like the AWB sunset. Bet your ass a Dem prez would have arrested them at least, or Waco'ed them...

Right to Die / Abortion -- lets have a special session to save a brain dead women (medically proven),

NOT medically proven - she had cerbral damage, but numerous cases of injury or tumor more severe in people with full function....

and when we are proven wrong we will smear an American Citizen with unsubstantiated claims of abuse.

..her A-hole husband let her teeth rot out of her gums and canceled the rehab that the trust fund was supposed to pay for, plus we STILL don't know how she got injured in the first place - we DO know she didn't have bulimia and a heart attack, as we were told...

SS is broke, the tax system is broke, we have huge defecits, lets focus on the real issues like abortion.

...because the death of millions of innocent lives can wait, right? If they were doing to ANIMALS what they do those BABIES, the SPCA would have them up on charges...

Socialism scares the hell out of me to, but it tends to be a stable form of government.

Stable BAD!

Theocracies are hell on earth - Iran, Afganistan, Seria, . . .

...Israel, (which would be a nice place but for the Palestinian terrorism), Vatican City, Tibet (before the Red Chinese came)...you pick out only the worst-case examples, almost all of them Muslim. I don't see an ayatollah in our future.

I will fight either form politically or forcefully if necessary. Both forms of government are completly illegal under the constitution.

So's the one we got now, or didn't you notice? When you bustin' a cap off in a Supreme Court justice, Rambo?

Face it religion is responsible for most of the armed conflicts around the world. People forcing their beliefs on other people.

REALLY? - see, cuz I thought the Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, GWI and GWII had LITTLE to NOTHING to do with religion. There's beleifs OTHER than religion to force, ask any of the realatives of Pol Pot's, Mao's, Lenin's, Stalin's, Kruschev's, Kim Il Sung's, Ho's, or Castro's victims - all at the hands of a philosphy that DENIES religion. You also fail to give credit for the good things that religios beliefs have brought - the end to slavery, international emergency relief, support for abused spouses and recovering substance abusers, etc.

As previously stated, I am done with republicans. They buy just as many votes with their vote buying scemes as the Democrats do. Neither party gives a damn about the constitution.

I still submit that given even your own examples, the Dems are worse - just look at the Supreme Court decisions lately, and who appointed the minority opposition. You need to chill - we didn't get in this mess overnight, and it will take time to get the pendulum swinging back the other way. Lok at Concealed Carry, the end of the ASW, etc.

 

[slzy]

what Democrats say can't be done,and the republicans don't have the guts to do what they say.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Yes, they did. Both the House and Senate have chaplains, (as do the Armed Forces), and open their sessions with prayer - Christian prayer. The Supreme Court opens it sessions with "God bless this court" - AND they have Moses holding the Ten Commandments in a frieze that decorates their building. The President is sworm in with a Christian Bible, as are court witnesses. Even our money has "In God We Trust" on it -( might as well, they took the gold out of it!). True, no mention of it is in the Constitution - but it sure is in the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers would look at you as if you were from Mars if you were to tell them to their faces that the U.S. WASN'T established as a Christian country, and that the Ten Commanndments AREN'T the basis of law.

The prayer that opens the house is not always CHRISTIAN (i.e., invoking the blessing of Jesus.) It is often Judeo-Christian, referring only to the father.

"God bless this court" is prayer, but not necessarily Christian prayer.

The Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court's frieze is one of several great lawgivers, and shown as a secular presentation, without religious content.

The Declaration of Independence is not part of our legal system or form of government. It was a pre-government document -- a justification. A propaganda tool, as well.

A number of the Founding Fathers, including some influential ones -- Jeffersons, Adams, Paine, Franklin -- were Deists. Many of the great European philosophers that shaped their political and philosophical thiking were also Deist. They all believed in God, but did not profess to follow Christ.

Read about the philosophies of the time and you'll see its not quite as clear cut as you've been led to believe.

 

[richyoung]

The prayer that opens the house is not always CHRISTIAN (i.e., invoking the blessing of Jesus.) It is often Judeo-Christian, referring only to the father.

I'll stipulate to that....

"God bless this court" is prayer, but not necessarily Christian prayer.

It is most decidedly Judeo-Christian prayer...notice it doesn't refer to Allah, Thor, Zeus, or the Dahli Llama...

The Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court's frieze is one of several great lawgivers, and shown as a secular presentation, without religious content.

To refer to the Ten COmmandments as anything BUT relgious context is a level of lawering that appraches the classic "that depends on what your definition of "is" is...". If law is not based on devine guidance, then what?

The Declaration of Independence is not part of our legal system or form of government. It was a pre-government document -- a justification. A propaganda tool, as well.

..and is commonly refered to in Supreme Court cases because it lays out the justification for establishing a new country, gives a theoretical basis for the new governement later to be codified in the Constitution, and is illuminative as to the reasoning and thought processes of the same people who wrote the Constitution. It is also what you say it is,...but much more as well. You left that out.

A number of the Founding Fathers, including some influential ones -- Jeffersons, Adams, Paine, Franklin -- were Deists.

More accurately, flirted with Deism at some point in their lives...and the majority, including some influential ones, were Christian.

Many of the great European philosophers that shaped their political and philosophical thiking were also Deist. They all believed in God, but did not profess to follow Christ.

..still beleived in God...

Read about the philosophies of the time and you'll see its not quite as clear cut as you've been led to believe.

Read em already...

 

[RealGun]

Yes, they did. Both the House and Senate have chaplains, (as do the Armed Forces), and open their sessions with prayer - Christian prayer. The Supreme Court opens it sessions with "God bless this court" - AND they have Moses holding the Ten Commandments in a frieze that decorates their building. The President is sworm in with a Christian Bible, as are court witnesses. Even our money has "In God We Trust" on it -( might as well, they took the gold out of it!). True, no mention of it is in the Constitution - but it sure is in the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers would look at you as if you were from Mars if you were to tell them to their faces that the U.S. WASN'T established as a Christian country, and that the Ten Commanndments AREN'T the basis of law. - richyoung

These are the Trojan horses that Christians like to use to stake a claim to this country. They want more now, but in hindsight none of these figments of religion should have been allowed in the first place. We never seem to learn about the danger and permanence of precedent.

If we were serious about being exclusive, we should have made Christianity a condition of immigration and citizenship. We didn't. It wasn't relevant. One valid citizen is not the guest of another just because of a difference in religion, not to mention race or cultural background. If healthy, sane, marginally useful, and not known to be a criminal, you're in.

Of course, you could always walk in unconditionally from Mexico and be given a free pass on citizenship later.

I thought your comment about abortion was inappropriate. We are not allowed to engage in debates on that subject. Actually, religion doesn't work either, if we start jousting over doctrine.

 

[White Horseradish]

The Ten Commandments are the basis of our laws? How's that?

Let's see. Which commandments are in our law?

'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' - no
'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image' - no
'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain' - no
'Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.' - no
'Honour thy father and thy mother' - no
'Thou shalt not kill.' - yes
'Thou shalt not commit adultery.' - no
'Thou shalt not steal.' - yes
'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' - yes
'Thou shalt not covet ... any thing that is thy neighbour's.' - no

Only three out of the ten. Hardly "the root of our law system". So, do we display only #6, #8 and #9?



As to prayer, I have yet to hear of anyone at any school being forbidden to pray privately. Public prayer belongs in church.


Richyoung, most of the evil bastards you named were Communists of one flavor or another. Communism is no less a religion than any other. They have a set of beliefs, a Holy Book (Das Kapital), A Holy Site (The mausoleum with Lenin's mummy), a religious symbol,holidays, meetings, saints, holy objects. Just because they call it Politburo instead of Synode doesn't mean it all that different in function. And the reason Communism denies religion is that it replaces it. Christianity denied the old polytheistic religions in the same way.

Granted, religion is not responsible for ALL wars, but it sure gave us some beauties. The Thirty Years War, anyone?

 

[petrel800]

I still submit that given even your own examples, the Dems are worse

I will agree with that, about the only statement you have made that I do agree with. Just because I'm not voting for a republican doesn't mean I'm voting for a Democrat. The founders never intended for the government to only have two parties. There are other options out there. I don't need the satisfaction of voting for a winner. I want the satisfaction of voting for somebody who is going to follow the laws of the land, The constitution.

The only other thing I'm going to touch on because I can't add to what Realgun and White Horseradish added.

Yeah - he paid lip service to the race hustling mau-maus - but he DID nothing, just like the AWB sunset.

I'm tried of politically correct people doing nothing. Doing nothing in Washington is the equivalent of job security. The fact is every politician up there is more concerned about staying in office than doing their job. Lip service and doing nothing is weak leadership. I voted for Bush twice. He had me convinced after 9-11, but maybe it was just the strength of a unified people with one goal. Unfortunatly, in other areas, he is a weak leader which is evident in his vote buying scemes and his sell outs on SS, Tax Reform, the Boarders. I think he is a sincere man with a devout lifestyle. I don't think he lied or has done anything illegal. I just think hes a weak leader in certain areas of our government (as noted above).

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court's frieze is one of several great lawgivers, and shown as a secular presentation, without religious content.

To refer to the Ten COmmandments as anything BUT relgious context is a level of lawering that appraches the classic "that depends on what your definition of "is" is...". If law is not based on devine guidance, then what?

Maybe Moses made it up, and the folks back then didn't think to look behind the curtain?

Maybe his "divine" source was his own astute observation of human behavior -- the same source used by the King of Babylon, who died around 1750 BCE, when he created what is now called the Code of Hammarubi. [The Hammarubi Code is considered the oldest example of a legal system. Its also included in the Supreme Court display. ]

Arguably nothing divine about that, and it predates the Ten Commandments by at least 500 years.

 

[mountainclmbr]

The road to tyranny is paved with promises of good intentions. The Democrats have mastered this and bring bricks engraved with all the feel problems that can be easily solved by communism. Not that I respect any politicians, but to me the Democrats seem to be the cheerleaders for the communist revival.

 

[richyoung]

Let's see. Which commandments are in our law?

'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' - no

A tricky point, I'll admit, but just what is that book that witnesses are sworn in with, and elected officials, such as the President, are sworn into office with. I'll give you a hint - it's NOT the Koran, Mao's Little Red Book, the collected wisom of Bhudda, or the Reader's Digest...

'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image' - no

I'll stipulate this one - you are free to build a Golden Calf and worship it if you so desire...

'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain' - no

WRONG - I don't know where you live, but using inflamatory or unsuitable language, including using the Lord's name in vain, in public WILL get you at least a warning or an arrest for "disordly conduct", especially if minor children are present.

'Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.' - no

WRONG - remember "blue laws"? - some places still have them.

'Honour thy father and thy mother' - no

WRONG - try geting married, enlisting in the military, or controlling your own finances before you are eighteen WITHOUT your paren't consent...UNLESS you have been legally "emancipated" by court action.

'Thou shalt not kill.' - yes

I'll stipulate to that...

'Thou shalt not commit adultery.' - no

WRONG - most states still have laws against adultery, as does the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where it is still routinely prosecuted.

'Thou shalt not steal.' - yes

So stipulated...

'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' - yes

...stipulated...

'Thou shalt not covet ... any thing that is thy neighbour's.' - no

Also a bit tricky, but property rights and (until recently) restrictions on "emminent domain" are there for just this reason.

Only three out of the ten.

Closer to nine out of ten...as I've pointed out - although I admit some of them aren't as well known, as prosecuted, or as prevalent as they once were, they were still the guiding influence in our legal system.

Hardly "the root of our law system". So, do we display only #6, #8 and #9?

As I've pointed out, (and as even a cursory reading of the papers of those that drafted out country's laws would reveal), you are incorrect.

Richyoung, most of the evil bastards you named were Communists of one flavor or another. Communism is no less a religion than any other.

..pretty easy, and less than intellectually honest, if you are going to defend the premise that "Religion causes (by implication, all) wars" by redefining everything that causes wars, including the DENIAL of religion, as religion.

 

[richyoung]

Arguably nothing divine about that, and it predates the Ten Commandments by at least 500 years.

Apples and oranges - Hammurabi didn't claim his code was written by the finger of God, last I checked. To declare the Ten Commandments "secular" is as ludicous as claiming baptism was just advocating bathing as part of personal hygiene.

 

[richyoung]

I'm tried of politically correct people doing nothing. Doing nothing in Washington is the equivalent of job security. The fact is every politician up there is more concerned about staying in office than doing their job. Lip service and doing nothing is weak leadership. I voted for Bush twice. He had me convinced after 9-11, but maybe it was just the strength of a unified people with one goal. Unfortunatly, in other areas, he is a weak leader which is evident in his vote buying scemes and his sell outs on SS, Tax Reform, the Boarders. I think he is a sincere man with a devout lifestyle. I don't think he lied or has done anything illegal. I just think hes a weak leader in certain areas of our government (as noted above).

Little civics lesson for you...CONGRESS, (thats the House and Senate), pass legislation. If you haven't noticed, there are no shortage of RINOs in the Senate stopping all of those initiatives you are griping about. We didn't get into these messes over-night, & it will take a while to roll them back. ALso, the Republican party is demonsstrating a severe lack of competence in being the MAJORITY party, in part because they haven't been one for quite some time.

 

[RealGun]

ALso, the Republican party is demonsstrating a severe lack of competence in being the MAJORITY party, in part because they haven't been one for quite some time. - richyoung

What is "competence in being the majority party"?

 

[Igloodude]

Richyoung, you can't have it both ways. Either your example of all elected officials swearing on the Bible and "taking the Lord's name in vain" = disorderly conduct are not applicable as they're simply popular 'traditions' separate from the law, or your examples of blue laws and adultery laws are not applicable because they're virtually ignored even where they still exist.

Officials swearing "...so help me God" on the Bible is simply tradition started by Washington (and no doubt assisted by a run of Christian presidents). One can affirm with their hand on a dictionary (or the Koran, or Torah, or whatever) and it will still be legally valid. What do you think Joseph Lieberman would do at his inauguration?

Saying "G-D it!" (using the full expression of course) in public is not illegal, period. In fact you could reasonably say pretty much anything with anti-religious content in public without being arrested. It isn't the content of the speaking, it is the conduct of the speaker.

So we're only at seven out of ten at best, and frankly the adultery and Sabbath ones are pretty weak, representing the public social mores at the time of drafting rather than legal precedent ensconced in the Constitution. Of the remaining five, I see them in criminal law systems of nearly every nation on the planet including distinctly non-Christian ones, so attributing them purely to the Ten Commandments is disenguous.

 

[richyoung]

Richyoung, you can't have it both ways. Either your example of all elected officials swearing on the Bible and "taking the Lord's name in vain" = disorderly conduct are not applicable as they're simply popular 'traditions'

The Constitution requires that the specific oath be "sworn (or affirmed0 - the only way to do that is with a Bible - otherwise, ther is no oath,just a recitiation. Traditionally, the Cheif Justic of the Supreme Court swears in the President using a family bible supplied by him,- but any Federal judge, and any Bible, are legal.

separate from the law, or your examples of blue laws and adultery laws are not applicable because they're virtually ignored even where they still exist.

They weren't always ignored, - we ARE talking about the "basis" for our laws, remember? The fact that they are there, and were once more vigorously enforced, is evidence of that basis. Current selective or non-enforcement is NOT evidence contra-wise.

Officials swearing "...so help me God" on the Bible is simply tradition started by Washington (and no doubt assisted by a run of Christian presidents). One can affirm with their hand on a dictionary (or the Koran, or Torah, or whatever) and it will still be legally valid.

Says who? Try swearing on a Koran (or anything other than a Bible) at YOUR next court case, & see where that gets you...

What do you think Joseph Lieberman would do at his inauguration?

Idunno - ask HIM - seeing as the OT is in the Bible, I don't think he'll have too much heartburn about it.

Saying "G-D it!" (using the full expression of course) in public is not illegal, period.

It is where I live - I've seen people arrested for it.

In fact you could reasonably say pretty much anything with anti-religious content in public without being arrested. It isn't the content of the speaking, it is the conduct of the speaker.

Speach IS conduct - depending on where you are when you pull this stunt, expect the stainless steel bracelets in Ok.

So we're only at seven out of ten at best,

...nine out of ten...

and frankly the adultery and Sabbath ones are pretty weak, representing the public social mores at the time of drafting rather than legal precedent ensconced in the Constitution.

..the "mores of the time" WERE the Ten Commandments...

Of the remaining five, I see them in criminal law systems of nearly every nation on the planet including distinctly non-Christian ones, so attributing them purely to the Ten Commandments is disenguous.

Perhaps they got the idea from us? Besides, t'was YOU who started counting, (badly, I might add...)

 

[RevDisk]

The Constitution requires that the specific oath be "sworn (or affirmed0 - the only way to do that is with a Bible - otherwise, ther is no oath,just a recitiation. Traditionally, the Cheif Justic of the Supreme Court swears in the President using a family bible supplied by him,- but any Federal judge, and any Bible, are legal.

I've been avoiding the thread recently because I think the religious stuff probably deserves to be on APS.

But your comment is flat out incorrect. No oath of office needs to be on a Bible. It happens to be tradition for some positions, but it is not a requirement. Otherwise, it would be an express violations of Article VI of the Constitution.

Article VI, Paragraph 3 :

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Says who? Try swearing on a Koran (or anything other than a Bible) at YOUR next court case, & see where that gets you...

It gets me seated on the witness chair. Actually, I swear in with no book. I swear in with some quote about knowing what perjury is. I believe we have a couple lawyers around here, they could probably tell you the quote verbatim.

WRONG - I don't know where you live, but using inflamatory or unsuitable language, including using the Lord's name in vain, in public WILL get you at least a warning or an arrest for "disordly conduct", especially if minor children are present.

I'm not sure where you are from, but I would honestly like to know where you've seen people arrested for using your God's name in a derogatory manner. Court cases would be nice. As I'm sure anyone in their right mind would sue if they were arrested for using religious terms in a derogatory manner.

WRONG - remember "blue laws"? - some places still have them.

Most Blue Laws have been completely or partially repealed. If I'm not mistaken, most of them had to deal with alcohol. Aside from alcohol, what other behaviors were codified under Blue Laws?

WRONG - most states still have laws against adultery, as does the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where it is still routinely prosecuted.

Yes, some states have laws against adultry. However, usually it's more of a civil matter moreso than a criminal one.

As for the UCMJ, adultry is codified as being illegal because it is detrimental to unit morale and cohesion. In other words, it's bad for soldiers to snog other soldiers' wives because it causes issues in an environment with lots of weaponry and expensive equipment.

WRONG - try geting married, enlisting in the military, or controlling your own finances before you are eighteen WITHOUT your paren't consent...UNLESS you have been legally "emancipated" by court action.

Uh, what does "honour your father and mother" have to do with getting married, enlisting in the military or controlling your own finances? For minors, sure. But that has nothing to do with the ten commandments. It's because the minor is not legally allowed to make their own decisions on many aspects of their life.

Also a bit tricky, but property rights and (until recently) restrictions on "emminent domain" are there for just this reason.

Uh, coveting is a mental process. Sure, it leads to behavior. But saying property rights were caused by "thou shalt not covet" is a REAL leap of the imagination.



Uhm. Geesh, Richyoung. Some of your comments are correct, but a lot of them are incredible leaps of imagination that have no basis.

 

[Igloodude]

RevDisk has already responded to everything very well, but I wanted to address one specific point further:

The Constitution requires that the specific oath be "sworn (or affirmed0 - the only way to do that is with a Bible - otherwise, ther is no oath,just a recitiation. Traditionally, the Cheif Justic of the Supreme Court swears in the President using a family bible supplied by him,- but any Federal judge, and any Bible, are legal.

During a tour at a MEPS while in the military, I administered the oath of enlistment to a few hundred recruits. The oath (or affirmation) includes the phrase "do solemnly swear (or affirm)" and if swearing, appends "so help me God." There is no Bible involved, yet it is not just a recitation but an oath/affirmation. Using a Bible in civil office swearings-in is only tradition, unless you can cite law to the contrary.

 

[Bruce H]

What one swears an oath on is immaterial. A person of their word could swear on a stack of Husler magazines and still be an honest person. Teddy Kennedy. Diane Feinstein, Ken Lay, Jesse Jackson, ect could swear on a mountain of bibles and still be what they are.

The difference between republicans and Democrats? Spelling

 

[Marshall]

GT +10

Rich, keep it up, I think you're doing a fine job.

 

[Don Gwinn]

The long-winded religious debate makes my eyes glaze over, but I want to point out that we've now had three pages of debate on a very contentious subject with no personal attacks, no flaming, no name-calling and no stupidity.

I wish it were always this easy!

Great job, guys. Honestly, it might be straying slightly into that religious area we normally try to avoid, but it's so darn civil.

 

[Boss Spearman]

removed