Two words for my fellow Americans...

[AkashaCatBat]

Please explain what you mean by "hatred." If you mean standing against abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, adultery, homosexuality, and a whole host of other socially charged actions, they have done so for two thousand years. Demanding they change their stand on moral issues now is not hatred on their part. If you mean what radical Islam espouses, then I agree.

 

I would consider denying a person the right to a state-sanctioned wedding and all of the government privileges it provides an act of hate. I agree that each religion has a right to teach whatever it wants to, but when religious tenants affect public policy is when a certain belief becomes a malevolent action. Like I said, I do not expect any church to change their standing on any particular issue. If the your church does not want to perform homosexual marriages, that is their right. But there is no good reason why the state should be restricted from doing so.

 

"Communism" failed because it was a totalitarian regime, which, by the way, still exists in a form in China. Socialism in other governmental structures functions better, but in the end still plays Robin Hood without moral or ethical controls.

 

Please explain. What moral or ethical controls does it lack? Making sure that everyone has their basic needs met sounds pretty moral and ethical to me. And society as a whole can only benefit from making sure everyone is happy and healthy. So what if Joe Millionaire has to give up that fifth 55" plasma screen tv? If it means someone else doesn't have to worry about where to come up with the money to pay for surgery, I am all for it.

 

Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, those that are truly interested in benevolence are more fit that a government that has only the most tenuous of connections with the community at large.

 

Having a religion doesn't make you automatically interested in benevolence. And lack of religion doesn't mean that you AREN'T benevolent. And I have more connection to the government than I do to any of those faiths, despite being raised in the Catholic church. The government is VERY connected to the community at large, seeing as how they were elected by, you know, the community.

 

You need to review your history. Start with Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Convention, where the phrase "separation of Church and State" comes from. No, they did not want a theocracy. But neither did they want a state controlled church. And one item of note, the Founding Fathers saw "Church" as we see "Denomination." The Church, made up of multiple denominations and faiths, was to influence the government, not control it. And the government certainly was not to control the Church.

 

How does socialized health care or not allowing religious doctrine to control public policy equal state controlled religion? Religious institutions in this country can still teach pretty much what they want to. They don't have to pay taxes (at least in the U.S.). So what, exactly, is the state controlling?

 

Jefferson was very much against an established religion. So were John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, to name a few. They also don't appear to be too keen on religion having any great affect on the government.

 

Jefferson wrote "The Jefferson Bible", which was basically the teachings of Jesus with all the miracles and references to Jesus' divinity taken out. He did this to emphasize the morality of Jesus' teachings, free from any religious dogma. Some more Jefferson quotes:

 

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. "

 

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. "

 

And my favorite:

 

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

 

That's just Jefferson. Let's see what Adams has to say...

 

"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

 

or Franklin...

 

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England]and in New England"

 

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

 

As stated above, no denomination controls the government here. And influence is not control. Separation, as you seem to define it here, is both a philosophical and physical impossibility. A balanced tension is necessary if one is not to control the other. And right now it seems to me the State has more control than the Church.

 

While no one denomination controls the government, it is definitely overly influenced by Judeo-Christian values. I'm talking about the types of laws that are only made because of something that is said in the Bible or other religious text. A law that takes away rights of people based on Judeo-Christian values, even if that person does not subscribe to those values, is wrong.

 

Morality is not dependent on religion. You don't need religion to be able to figure out that you shouldn't kill, rape, or steal, or that you should "do unto others".

 

This is an incorrect statement. The Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with a "secular" government. They knew what would transpire, and looked on in horror at what the French Revolution produced. That was an attempt at a secular government. Their writings, as well as Supreme Court decisions into the middle 1900's, declared this was a "Christian Nation." Note it was not Catholic or Anglican or some other denominational nation, but Christian in its broadest sense, where Judeo/Christian values controlled our leaders and laws.

 

Again, I refer you to Jefferson in particular,

 

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

 

as well as the many other quotes I listed above.

 

Further reading, for anyone who is interested.

 

If there are concerns about this election, it is because of what has happened in the past because we rejected those very values, and what will happen if they are further eroded. As I said before, only the future will tell whether we deserve a "thank you" . . . or a "curse you."

 

Count this happy camper firmly on the "thank you" side. Things aren't going to get better right away, but we're definitely headed in the right direction.

[Jarno Mikkola]

So, why do so many "benevolent" churches spew hatred about so many people?

Please explain what you mean by "hatred." If you mean standing against...

their stand on moral issues now is not hatred on their part

I would say it's against all the other people, as that's how religions work with the; "the us against the others"... http://bible.cc/exodus/20-3.htm . -->

QUOTE (The Holy Bible @ one version http://bible.cc/exodus/20-3.htm . )

You are to have no other gods but me.

...That's how wars and massacres are built, or are these not true.

 

I say this cause the morals are interlinked to any religions other rules, like the one above.

[grogerson]

Real life has a way of intruding, so I have been delayed in replying. I shall try to defend my position as best I can. This is not intended to be an attack. If my words make you uncomfortable, that is to be expected with such emotionally charged issues. This is also why I have spent some time considering my words.

I would consider denying a person the right to a state-sanctioned wedding and all of the government privileges it provides an act of hate. I agree that each religion has a right to teach whatever it wants to, but when religious tenants affect public policy is when a certain belief becomes a malevolent action. Like I said, I do not expect any church to change their standing on any particular issue. If the your church does not want to perform homosexual marriages, that is their right. But there is no good reason why the state should be restricted from doing so.

What happens when public policy affects religious tenants? Please remember that marriage is a religious institution, defined as between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24). For two millennia the Christian Church has held this position. Add at least another 800 years for the Jewish faith. Other non-Christian cultures hold this as the standard, even atheistic governments. There are several reasons why they do. Homosexual couples cannot procreate. Marriage is a commitment between two people, not based simply on mutual fulfillment but also on potential child-bearing and child-rearing. The couple is also taking responsibility for the nurturing and training of their offspring. This has been forgotten in these turbulent times. They use their common resources toward this end, thus releasing the government from additional burdens. Cohabiting couples lack the commitment, homosexual couples the ability to procreate. There are other choices for them apart from redefining marriage to fit their desires. To require those opposed to those lifestyles to not only tolerate them but to accept them as equals is not a tolerable option.

 

California's Prop 8 addresses other problems as well, if that is what you are referring to. The people of the state defined marriage as between one man and one woman four years ago. The homosexual community used the courts to overturn the will of the people. They are trying to do so again. If they do get state sanctioned marriage, there are many homosexuals that will insist on Church marriage as well, regardless of the church's religious beliefs, and will take them to court to force the issue. They will also come from other states, then return and expect their own states to recognize their marriages, again forcing it upon others regardless of moral or religious standing. They have already attempted to do so. When a minority of less than ten percent imposes their will upon the rest, there are far greater concerns involved. It destroys the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment. Not only is religious liberty at risk, so is free speech and the right to dissent since they will call such dissent a hate crime. Sound far fetched? Canada has already had to deal with it.

 

Should the Church-at-Large compromise on its moral and ethical standards, it will cease to be relevant.

Please explain. What moral or ethical controls does it lack? Making sure that everyone has their basic needs met sounds pretty moral and ethical to me. And society as a whole can only benefit from making sure everyone is happy and healthy. So what if Joe Millionaire has to give up that fifth 55" plasma screen tv? If it means someone else doesn't have to worry about where to come up with the money to pay for surgery, I am all for it.

Communism used atheism as its base. The final authority was the State, maintained by men. In the end it failed because it only barely met the basic needs of everyone, except those in power. It created an atmosphere at distrust, fear and brutality because whoever had the power could do what they desired without limits. Joe Millionaire did not have a 55" plasma TV because he did not exist - unless he was a high State official. Those in power were unaccountable to any authority but their own.

Having a religion doesn't make you automatically interested in benevolence. And lack of religion doesn't mean that you AREN'T benevolent. And I have more connection to the government than I do to any of those faiths, despite being raised in the Catholic church. The government is VERY connected to the community at large, seeing as how they were elected by, you know, the community.

I did not say lack of religion disqualified benevolence. They are far less likely to be so, however. Just look at the per-capita giving of New England and the deep South. My point was that religious organizations have a closer tie to the local community, and a far greater interest of success, than the government does. They can also better follow up and monitor the use of resouirces than a detached bureaucracy can.

How does socialized health care or not allowing religious doctrine to control public policy equal state controlled religion? Religious institutions in this country can still teach pretty much what they want to. They don't have to pay taxes (at least in the U.S.). So what, exactly, is the state controlling?

 

Jefferson was very much against an established religion. So were John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, to name a few. They also don't appear to be too keen on religion having any great affect on the government.

It was control they were looking at. Most of Europe was controlled by the Catholic Church, while the Church of England was controlled by the King. They also knew too well their own colonial history. They felt that religious influence, through the people, was necessary for good government, and interdenominational conflicts would limit any one having dominance. The Christian faith in general was to be promoted, as being the most tolerant of all religions.

Jefferson wrote "The Jefferson Bible", which was basically the teachings of Jesus with all the miracles and references to Jesus' divinity taken out. He did this to emphasize the morality of Jesus' teachings, free from any religious dogma. Some more Jefferson quotes:

 

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. "

 

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. "

 

And my favorite:

 

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

 

That's just Jefferson. Let's see what Adams has to say...

 

"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

 

or Franklin...

 

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England]and in New England"

 

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

The two least religious of all the Founding Fathers are by far the most quoted: Jefferson and Franklin. What of the others? George Washington, Daniel Webster, John Jay, and others made clear their belief this nation came into being through Divine Providence, and carried a great responsibility with it. That includes Adams.

 

And as a side note, Jefferson disqualified himself as a Constitutional authority, being Ambassador to France when it was written.

While no one denomination controls the government, it is definitely overly influenced by Judeo-Christian values. I'm talking about the types of laws that are only made because of something that is said in the Bible or other religious text. A law that takes away rights of people based on Judeo-Christian values, even if that person does not subscribe to those values, is wrong.

 

Morality is not dependent on religion. You don't need religion to be able to figure out that you shouldn't kill, rape, or steal, or that you should "do unto others".

The values you seem to question are the very values that ended slavery, infanticide through exposure, matricide of unwanted wives (all common practices of ancient Rome and Greece), instituted hospitals to care for the sick, hospices for the dying, orphanages for the child without parents. It calls the rich to share their blessings with those less fortunate and Rulers to accountability before both the people and Heaven. Without the Judeo-Christian ethic, what you think would be easy to understand would be applied with prejudice, not universally. Just look at what has happened in the last century, which has been called the "Century of Atheism." The inherent value of human life is quickly lost when morality and ethics are separated from religion.

Again, I refer you to Jefferson in particular,

 

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

 

as well as the many other quotes I listed above.

 

Further reading, for anyone who is interested.

There are something like two hundred men considered Founding Fathers of this nation. The rest had far different opinions than Jefferson. Many were clergy, almost all had clerical training. Check them out. You might find your link a little less appealing.

Count this happy camper firmly on the "thank you" side. Things aren't going to get better right away, but we're definitely headed in the right direction.

Ignoring Western Europe, what will the rest of the world think? This nation carries more than a little responsibility for the current world financial crisis. What happens here has far greater influence beyond our borders than many realize. How the new president and congress lead may only create greater problems, especially if they continue operating without regard to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Let's see what happens in four years. Every four years we have a chance to change our leaders without bloodshed, as long as those two documents remain.

 

Jarno - "Us against them" is not limited to religion. Most governments, especially tyrannies, work this way. As for the Crusades (and the Jihads that prompted them), they were as much political as religious. What applies to people applies to governments as well.

 

"Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires...? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war..." James 4:1-2 (NKJV)

[Mike1072]

I would consider denying a person the right to a state-sanctioned wedding and all of the government privileges it provides an act of hate. I agree that each religion has a right to teach whatever it wants to, but when religious tenants affect public policy is when a certain belief becomes a malevolent action. Like I said, I do not expect any church to change their standing on any particular issue. If the your church does not want to perform homosexual marriages, that is their right. But there is no good reason why the state should be restricted from doing so.

What happens when public policy affects religious tenants? Please remember that marriage is a religious institution, defined as between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24). For two millennia the Christian Church has held this position. Add at least another 800 years for the Jewish faith. Other non-Christian cultures hold this as the standard, even atheistic governments. There are several reasons why they do. Homosexual couples cannot procreate. Marriage is a commitment between two people, not based simply on mutual fulfillment but also on potential child-bearing and child-rearing. The couple is also taking responsibility for the nurturing and training of their offspring. This has been forgotten in these turbulent times. They use their common resources toward this end, thus releasing the government from additional burdens. Cohabiting couples lack the commitment, homosexual couples the ability to procreate. There are other choices for them apart from redefining marriage to fit their desires. To require those opposed to those lifestyles to not only tolerate them but to accept them as equals is not a tolerable option.

So, infertile heterosexual couples should be denied marriage, too? Or those who wish to not have children? This argument is bullshit, especially considering the barriers put up to prevent homosexual couples from adopting children.

[bgf]

Please lock this thread already.

 

Politics, religion... what next? Windows vs Unix? Emacs vs vi?

[Mike1072]

Please lock this thread already.

Never!

 

Politics, religion... what next? Windows vs Unix? Emacs vs vi?

Pokémon Red was way better than Blue. You know it.

[Icendoan]

Everyone knows it. Also the best starter was Bulbasaur.

 

Pikachu sucks.

 

Icen

[Grunker]

Other non-Christian cultures hold this as the standard, even atheistic governments. There are several reasons why they do. Homosexual couples cannot procreate. Marriage is a commitment between two people, not based simply on mutual fulfillment but also on potential child-bearing and child-rearing.

 

Hehehe... What you're essentially saying is, gay couples shouldn't be legal, since they can't carry offspring... This, of course, if only a problem if everyone becomes gay, since the world, in essence, will be doomed.

 

Now tell me what would happen if everybody became catholic priests?

 

Plus; procreation argument is futile, women can have artificial injections. The family argument is also kindda hollow, as I speculate two guys/gals will give a child better raising than a single parent anyhow.

 

Besides that, I agree with Icen

[BevH]

Please lock this thread already.

 

Politics, religion... what next? Windows vs Unix? Emacs vs vi?

As long as the discussion here remains civil, the thread will not be locked. Noobermeet is a forum for open discussion on whatever topic you wish.

[Domi]

What happens when public policy affects religious tenants? Please remember that marriage is a religious institution, defined as between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24). For two millennia the Christian Church has held this position. Add at least another 800 years for the Jewish faith. Other non-Christian cultures hold this as the standard, even atheistic governments. There are several reasons why they do. Homosexual couples cannot procreate. Marriage is a commitment between two people, not based simply on mutual fulfillment but also on potential child-bearing and child-rearing. The couple is also taking responsibility for the nurturing and training of their offspring. This has been forgotten in these turbulent times. They use their common resources toward this end, thus releasing the government from additional burdens. Cohabiting couples lack the commitment, homosexual couples the ability to procreate. There are other choices for them apart from redefining marriage to fit their desires. To require those opposed to those lifestyles to not only tolerate them but to accept them as equals is not a tolerable option.

 

I always had an impression that people managed to get married and raise children somehow for millenia before the onset of Christianity. At present times, families of various religious presuasions raise children in a commendable fashion. I am an atheist in 4th generation, I was neither baptized or went near a church, except to look at the works of art, nor was my child. Nor I married 'in a church', which iirc means that I am not married, according to the church, lol. Been 'not' married for almost 10 years, and intend to till death do us part. But I can't really see why I have to pretend to believe in God to have a church wedding so many girls here seem to dream of, or to be a good wife. We sure take our commitment to one another and the nurturing of our offspring seriously, and neither of us feel threatened in any way by homosexual couples saying "I do".

 

To be honest, a state-supported at least 1 year maternity leave with a guaranteed return to work imo would do more in USA to promote child-birth and nurturing than forbidding gay marriages. It's not like gays and lesbians are going to dump their loved one in order to promptly marry someone else. The thing is they want to marry a particular special person, not to marry for the sake of marrying and procreating. They might even end up adopting kids that have no parents, which would be pretty good. I also don't feel in the least worried that my daughter might end up bringing a girl home, not a boy 15 years down the road. As long as she loves and is loved, the relationship is equal, and they are happy, I am happy.

 

As for taxes, when the times are good, I am perfectly content to pay my pretty high Canadian taxes to support those who are in trouble and the projects the society needs. And when I need help I know it's there, and I don't have to compromise my integrity to get it. Works for me.

[yarpen]

They might even end up adopting kids that have no parents, which would be pretty good.

Are you sure?

Statement of "when nobody wants him/her - give it to gays! They will took anything!" is pretty sad.

My private opinion about gays, as anyone else isn't important. We can like them, we can hate them. As anyone other. (I hate this tolerance paradox "You can hate Mike who is an idiot, but you can't hate Jeffry who's also an idiot because he's black/gay/jew etc.") But giving to gays possibility of adopting kids without their statement "Yes, I want to be a gay children" is bad.

 

I understand it when kid is a bit older - he can say that. But adoption is mainly about very young baby. Can he say "yes" or "no"? Can he claim his statement about gays? No. After years (in bad society like for example my country) this kid can have many problems - just because his parents are gays.

 

Huh, offtopic. And about stereotypical polish statement "NO FOR GAYS". Hmm. I'm very very far away from throwing stones or even say anything bad about them (people like people) and don't want to be messed with nontolerance stuff please.

[Domi]

Statement of "when nobody wants him/her - give it to gays! They will took anything!" is pretty sad.

 

That's not what I said or meant; I meant that the gay couple might want to adopt children if they want to experience the joys (and tribudations) of the parenthood. Adoptions are not mainly about very young babies - at least here in Alberta I see the posters of 'adopt an older kid' while no posters of 'adopt a baby!'. And if I were an orphan, you bet I wanted to loving adults to raise me. Gay couples are screened just like heterosexual couples, so there is the same ability to detect any possible problems with the parents.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Let me clear out the rubble...

What happens when public policy affects religious tenants?..

So, infertile heterosexual couples should be denied marriage, too?

Grogerson should have said; This is what happens when public policy is affected by religious tenants as a quick way to try to get things clear in governing the nation by new rulers and the things get left where they were, until they need to be re-evaluated. The point being, that now that the marriage has certain attached perks, that have nothing to do with being able to conceive a child... the law needs to be amended to allow other similar agreements that have the same perks. But there are problems with that too...

The Devil was a layer, a very bad one.

 

I also don't feel in the least worried that my daughter might end up bringing a girl home, not a boy 15 years down the road. As long as she loves and is loved, the relationship is equal, and they are happy, I am happy.

And she is how old exactly? After all, if she does that in the next 5 years, the story might be different one... and you say she knows nothing of love... the love, the love that guides your life, the one that you'll give your life to protect, your children. After all, they'll be the only thing you can have, when you'll leavedie.

[Domi]

My mother taught me the difference between love and abuse, romantic and criminal without having to invoke religion. She did it well. I hope to be able to do the same for my daughter. If she choses to become spiritual by whatever reason, it certainly will be her choice, but I will not share her believes.

[cmorgan]

ummmm.... are we sure this is really Noobermeet "all topics"? I thought it was more game oriented -

 

but I see Gibbs in here, and icelus started the conversation innocently enough (I don't think anyone expected this deep a conversation, but hey, why not, I guess).

 

I have no major material to add, save for one point of discussion. For several hundred years common western culture and religion has consistently pointed to a moral "state of marriage" which (in most judeo-christian religions save perhaps very early Church of Lattter Day Saints [Mormons]) involved a single man and a single woman. There is some religious support that this is the "fruitful and multiply" situation for some churches, and some support for mirroring the marriage of JC (not Compton, by the way) to his Church, and even some christian religious sects where the union is seen as both a physical and spiritual "merger" into one person.

 

OK, no problem there - folks can believe what they want to believe, as long as they don't come to my door bearing pitchforks and brandishing either torches or large caliber automatic weapons (I can take 'em on if it is just a few small arms ). We can have a solid discussion on moral grounds as to what is defined by a particular religion or set of religions as "deviant behavior", and what a morally correct person should be doing/thinking/reacting to when they are participating in a modern society - basically, where does the social contract conflict with the spritual belief system, and how do we negotiate that minefield together without resorting to aforesaid pitchforks/automatic weapons.

 

 

The problem is that folks keep bringing that "fruitful and multiply" argument forward, pulling a concrete definition of "can't have children together" as a reason to push a category of people/belief/state of being out of mainstream christianity.

 

That means my wife and I, who cannot have children, are by definition not fully christian. We can be morally so inclined, but if the definition of marriage is the "ability to procreate", we are out. Which will suprise us no end, when we walk up to the Big Gates (not Bill, the pearly ones with all the Saints hanging out strumming harps and laying down really great jazz tracks) and say "yo, hey there, we have friends who are all denominations and all walks of life who are good people. Where is the "less than absolutist" section? You know, the one for the folks who don't own slaves (biblical) and don't stone adulterers in the pubic square (biblical) and don't generally smite evil by killing off entire tribes which disagree with us (old testament, but biblical)... the place where all us relatively *MOGOW/WOGOWs can get back in the game, and go back down and help folks out?"

 

The alternate side of that theory is the relaxed definition - the definition of marriage as "possibility of procreating", well, with modern technology, I can then marry a lab machine, and any type of pairing of human being becomes part of the definition. Which really bugs me, because I always thought Laura Croft would make a great wife, and slapping a computer terminal on a lab machine or two might just be the ticket (oops - better stop, or my wife will get jealous! ).

 

 

I guess I would be interested more in the debate if folks didn't keep putting whether or not a couple is capable of procreation into the mix. Arguing status of marriage is cool - there are a zillion religions out there that define marriage as everything from a social contract made formal by hopping over a broom in the presence of community representatives to the devotion of self to a lifetime serving a particular denomination (nuns "marrying" JC [again, not the Compton variety] at their taking of vows).

 

edit: *Men Of Good Will/Women Of Good Will - probably an ancient phrase now, I guess.

 

 

edit2: Unix vs Windows? I'd rather debate "OS2 vs The World - Why IBM OS2 Ruled and Everyone Else Stank of Elderberries"!