I think Gov SHOULD get involved in Religion...

[karl k]

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/8313808.htm

It seems only fair if religion is going to get involved in the government. I think the tax exempt status of church's should be revolked. After all, it really is a business when you think about it and all business's are subject to tax's! Why should the church be any different? Think of the money that Bush could get to fund his war in Iraq! Better yet, since the church is big on charity, have the church(thru gov taxation) fund the rebuilding of Iraq. We could put a nice face on it by advertising the Christians are donating to the Muslims as a good will gesture! We could(thru the Gov) require pastors, ministers, bishops, ect. to submit to background checks and Psyc evaluations before deeming them fit to practice religion in an effort to screen out the child abusers and mentally unstable in the interest of the safety of the community. We can thumb print and screen just like we do to teachers, healthcare workers, police, daycare, and military personel. Make them pass a state/federal exam like the doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, and teachers before they can practice. When one denomination gets to big compaired to others, the gov can step in and de-monopolize and re-institute competition amongst the different religions. Most of all, the clergy could be held as accountable as you or I for killing or abusing other humans.

I submit the world would be a better place with religion, if we just make the most of it!

[JSE]

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/8313808.htm

It seems only fair if religion is going to get involved in the government. I think the tax exempt status of church's should be revolked. After all, it really is a business when you think about it and all business's are subject to tax's! Why should the church be any different? Think of the money that Bush could get to fund his war in Iraq! Better yet, since the church is big on charity, have the church(thru gov taxation) fund the rebuilding of Iraq. We could put a nice face on it by advertising the Christians are donating to the Muslims as a good will gesture! We could(thru the Gov) require pastors, ministers, bishops, ect. to submit to background checks and Psyc evaluations before deeming them fit to practice religion in an effort to screen out the child abusers and mentally unstable in the interest of the safety of the community. We can thumb print and screen just like we do to teachers, healthcare workers, police, daycare, and military personel. Make them pass a state/federal exam like the doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, and teachers before they can practice. When one denomination gets to big compaired to others, the gov can step in and de-monopolize and re-institute competition amongst the different religions. Most of all, the clergy could be held as accountable as you or I for killing or abusing other humans.

I submit the world would be a better place with religion, if we just make the most of it!

JSE reads post and takes three steps to the right in order to avoid lightning strike coming from above toward Karl.

Your messing with the church's money now.

JSE

[karl k]

JSE reads post and takes three steps to the right in order to avoid lightning strike coming from above toward Karl.

Your messing with the church's money now.

JSE

Good one though! And yes, I do feel a little better... though I haven't yet read todays headlines!

You've got to admit though, if these clergy would put that much effort(and the money they're about to give a lobbiest) into homelessness, my town wouldn't have 5000 homeless still looking for help!

The kicker to the whole thing is Kansas law ALREADY defines marriage between man and woman. This was nothing more than trying to rub it in, IMO. Oh, and just to give you some idea how much power the church holds over the state gov... the vote that was described was what you would consider a "dark room" vote. Totally anonymous. Part of the KS senate is up for re-election this yr. and the church has vowed to find and replace those who vote no on the bill... for what ever reason.

[JSE]

Good one though! And yes, I do feel a little better... though I haven't yet read todays headlines!

You've got to admit though, if these clergy would put that much effort(and the money they're about to give a lobbiest) into homelessness, my town wouldn't have 5000 homeless still looking for help!

The kicker to the whole thing is Kansas law ALREADY defines marriage between man and woman. This was nothing more than trying to rub it in, IMO. Oh, and just to give you some idea how much power the church holds over the state gov... the vote that was described was what you would consider a "dark room" vote. Totally anonymous. Part of the KS senate is up for re-election this yr. and the church has vowed to find and replace those who vote no on the bill... for what ever reason.

Your right, it's not a two way street. The church was to be protected from the Government but also wants to use the Government for it's own gain. I started a thread a while back about religion today and this is one of the things that bother's me about today's "Chruch". In some ways, the "Church", has almost become a political party. Again, I am a religous person but I am frustrated with what the "church" has become.

JSE, still standing three steps to the right, just in case.

[woodman]

Your right, it's not a two way street. The church was to be protected from the Government but also wants to use the Government for it's own gain. I started a thread a while back about religion today and this is one of the things that bother's me about today's "Chruch". In some ways, the "Church", has almost become a political party. Again, I am a religous person but I am frustrated with what the "church" has become.

JSE, still standing three steps to the right, just in case.

"... almost become a political party" you say? From where I sit, they are a political party, and their name is Republicans. FYI, you don't need to stand three steps to the right or anywhere else ... fearful of the "wrath of God", 'cause God doesn't care for what the "Church" has become and represents any more than you or I (or Karl) do.

IMO, if everyone on the planet would seek spirituality rather than religion, the entire planet would be far better off. In fact, there would probably, actually be peace in the world. A far cry from what we're experiencing today, which is chaos caused primarily by religion and religious fanatics - which are NOT restricted to just Muslims either.

[karl k]

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/8313808.htm

It seems only fair if religion is going to get involved in the government. I think the tax exempt status of church's should be revolked. After all, it really is a business when you think about it and all business's are subject to tax's! Why should the church be any different? Think of the money that Bush could get to fund his war in Iraq! Better yet, since the church is big on charity, have the church(thru gov taxation) fund the rebuilding of Iraq. We could put a nice face on it by advertising the Christians are donating to the Muslims as a good will gesture! We could(thru the Gov) require pastors, ministers, bishops, ect. to submit to background checks and Psyc evaluations before deeming them fit to practice religion in an effort to screen out the child abusers and mentally unstable in the interest of the safety of the community. We can thumb print and screen just like we do to teachers, healthcare workers, police, daycare, and military personel. Make them pass a state/federal exam like the doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, and teachers before they can practice. When one denomination gets to big compaired to others, the gov can step in and de-monopolize and re-institute competition amongst the different religions. Most of all, the clergy could be held as accountable as you or I for killing or abusing other humans.

I submit the world would be a better place with religion, if we just make the most of it!

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/new...re/8280801.htm

Pretty much as I thought.

[JSE]

[QUOTE=woodman]"... almost become a political party" you say? From where I sit, they are a political party, and their name is Republicans. QUOTE]


There is the right and then there is the religous right and then there is the fanatic religous right. I am conservative but I am by no means part of the fanatic religous right. I agree in that they are doing more harm than good right now because of what they have become. I think the country needs to be more spiritual and place more importance in God and faith but they need to do it for themselves, not as part of a political agenda. Like I mentioned before, I am a religous person but I have become frustrated with the "church" for this reason as well as other reasons.

I think the media has created the image that Republicans are religous fanantics and Democrats are non-religous atheist. Far from the truth regarding both parties.

JSE

[piece-it pete]

..... then nonprofit wouldn't exist!

Hi Karl . Been ill, darn flu.

Ignoring the subject of gay "marriage" to keep sanity - I can think of many, many nonprofits that attempt to influence politics. Is Kansas a battleground state? We've got 5,000,000,000 political commercials running nonstop here in Ohio, at least half of them are not candidate sponsored, but paid for by those nonprofits like MoveOn (maybe the politicos can get something like CNN - "All the mud, all the time" ).

The fact is religion has always been involved in the US gov't, because of the simple fact that the Founding Fathers were Christians. See "Declaration of Independence". It's the freedom part of our country that allows this - I believe in God, I can vote or campaign as my my consience allows/demands. Anything else is tyranny. Some nut who believes in killing retarded babies (Kervorkian) had this freedom. Because he didn't call it a religion, it would be OK for him to be a nonprofit? And the "crux of the biscuit" of all these speech/religion issues, and the real danger to freedom: who decides?

Also, the background checks, etc. mentioned would be unconstitutional interference in religion, the type of thing it was meant to prevent.

Pete

[karl k]

..... then nonprofit wouldn't exist!

Hi Karl . Been ill, darn flu.

Ignoring the subject of gay "marriage" to keep sanity - I can think of many, many nonprofits that attempt to influence politics. Is Kansas a battleground state? We've got 5,000,000,000 political commercials running nonstop here in Ohio, at least half of them are not candidate sponsored, but paid for by those nonprofits like MoveOn (maybe the politicos can get something like CNN - "All the mud, all the time" ).

The fact is religion has always been involved in the US gov't, because of the simple fact that the Founding Fathers were Christians. See "Declaration of Independence". It's the freedom part of our country that allows this - I believe in God, I can vote or campaign as my my consience allows/demands. Anything else is tyranny. Some nut who believes in killing retarded babies (Kervorkian) had this freedom. Because he didn't call it a religion, it would be OK for him to be a nonprofit? And the "crux of the biscuit" of all these speech/religion issues, and the real danger to freedom: who decides?

Also, the background checks, etc. mentioned would be unconstitutional interference in religion, the type of thing it was meant to prevent.

Pete

Although, judging from your avitar, you still have a bit of a stuffy nose!

I'm not here to say you can't personally vote your consience, campaign for your favorite politician, believe in God, or help build a nice country... BUT what I am against, is politically motovated vandetta's being issued by anyone who doesn't like the way the vote went! Not to mention the idea that the subject of the vote was at best rhetorical. It just seems that the "church" has a never ending agenda to push it's beliefs on the public in one fashion or another. Initially, it was thru preaching and solicitation. Now that that has ran it's coarse, it's time to MAKE this countries people live a life they don't necessarily wish to live by making laws that reflect the laws of God and further restrict the equality and pursuit of happiness that were some of the goals of the founding fathers. If it was the desire of the founding fathers to make the country run based on the laws of god, we would be forced to go to church as our religions require and 10% of my income would be deducted from my pay and donated to charity. Now we jump ahead 200yrs and look at how many laws we have that restrict what we can do with our lives. Most don't realize just how restrained we are or could be. All it would take is the active enforcement of every current law for a month or so to wake most Americans up! That doesn't count the proposed bills that infest the state and fed gov! Ya know, it used to be that the church was a good place to go to figure things out... to get a handle on life and be thankful for what you do have. Now it seems that it is becomming more a place to go when you don't agree with what your neighbor is doing. To form alliances in an effort to affect other peoples lives in the way that they deem acceptable to God. To somehow validate the word of God by making a law that does so. It's important to me to say I'm not really bashing on believers in general. I have no prob with you believing what you want, raising a family the way you want, and doing what you want with your own lives. I think that's great! REALLY! All I would ask is that I(and others) receive the same treatment that I give to you. There's got to be some realization that Gods law ON EARTH is in addition to mans law on earth and not the other way around. If not, then you induce a belief structure on those who don't believe by forcing them to adhere to a law that promotes such a belief. Now, don't go gettin all crazy and start questioning the validity of such laws as homicide, rape, theft, and the "others" that remove major violence and crime from our lives. I'm saying that there is and should be a distinction between mans law(which is there to govern society reguardless of religion) and Gods law(which is set forth to be followed by those who believe) and sometimes, yes they do co-exist. But when they don't, The church is there to lobby the gov to make it so. I'm talking the things that everyday Americans get to enjoy and should. I'm talking about the things that cause division in America, the things that people try to implement that allow some to be better than others without cause. The laws that are implemented to use as a stepping stones to change other laws that protect freedoms/rights. I'm talking about the laws that are made up to set an example for no reason other than to make somebody sleep better at night or delay explaining how the real world works to their kids. It doesn't have to be the gay "marriage" issue. There are a number of issues that the church is/has been addressing over the yrs. It could be the recognition of homosexuals to exist as equals in general, the ability of a woman to preach as a minister...ess...ist or a pastor, bishop, the public sale of pornography, prostitution, public display of certain "art", public airing of content to be considered by the church(and other sensitive types) as offensive(Howard Stern for one), gambling, alchohol consumption, birth control, the private use of some naturally occurring "herbs",and the "big A". It seems to me that they have taken up the position that it is more efficient to remove "sin" from the general public through key government involvement in an effort to "save" everybody whether they want/need/deserve it or not instead of saving only those who ask for it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti American, I like my life here for the most part but I can also see it go by the wayside in a blink because it is not in order with what the church ordains as acceptable and others don't see the harm in changing what's mine. An example is a few yrs ago, in RI or CT I think, a town decided to make a law to prevent adults(over 21) from having sex unless they were married. The reason? It was deemed the most efficient way to curb the rising cases of adultery. Ultimately it was struck down due to not being "realistically enforceble" because of invasion of privacy laws. The big proponent? Local churchs.

I'm saying that the church has become a business and they should be treated as one. They are in the business of selling religion. They have a goal to grow as large as possible, to reach more and more by any means necessary in an effort to validate the word of God. They have a heirarchy, middle management, and base labor. They receive money for services and use that money to build their customer base. They have a place of business, they have business hours, and they pass out paychecks. And if they have enough money to throw away on a lobbiest to beef up a law that already exists, then they should be taxed. They should be treated as any other business with standards that can be held accountable by the people that have to live with their morals. If the church(through the KS ST attourney general) wants to track the cases of teen abortion(Dr./patient conf.) by using the states laws on child abuse as justification, to make a better case for new abortion laws, then I don't see why we shouldn't question the integrity of these clergy and whether they themselves have ever committed child abuse and should be prosecuted. All in the interest of public safety of course.(sarcasm)

Is Kansas a battleground state? NO. In the last election and most others in the past 30yrs or so, the state(that is those in the state who have voted) voted something on the order of 65-70% republican. It's considered a gimmie state for the GOP.

We've got 5,000,000,000 political commercials running nonstop here in Ohio, at least half of them are not candidate sponsored, but paid for by those nonprofits like MoveOn

Doesn't it make you sick seeing all that money being spent trying to deceive the public about the opposition? Think of how the money could be better spent on solving some of the real problems we face today... like protecting the definition of marriage!(more sarcasm)

Some nut who believes in killing retarded babies (Kervorkian) had this freedom.

I thought he was for assisted suicide for terminally ill people... Euthinasia. Another activity made illegal in part because religion teaches against it. Funny, we can "put down" most any animal(without their consent) when in pain or suffering but not my grandpa(at his request) when he is suffering from cancer.

And the "crux of the biscuit" of all these speech/religion issues, and the real danger to freedom: who decides?

The question on some of this should be WHY do we need to decide? As I said, some of these things should be taught be the parents to their kids if the parents choose to. Some are already addressed to some extent by laws already on the books. Why do people feel the need to make laws that forbid the sale of porn due to it's content? Why feel the need to declare a murder of a fetus as a crime in addition to the murder of the mother to be? What's wrong with the penalty, as it is, for murdering ANY person? Not strong enough? Why not make it stronger. Why can't the Howard Stern Show just be re-scheduled to air after 8am weekdays when all kids should be in school or in bed sick? What's wrong with discussing or joking around about bodily fluids or the exchange there of? Why are people so intollerant and easily offended now-a-days? Usually, IMHO, it breaks down to these reasons...

If I can't do it, you can't either.
If I don't WANT to do it, I don't want you to do it either.
I can't stop one person from doing it without stopping everyone.
For the safety of the general public.
For national security.
It's not natural.
It's just not right.
It's not moral.
It's not ethical.
I shouldn't have to look or listen to that and neither should you.
Bad influence on the children.
It's bad for your health.
It's not safe.(for you personally)
It is offensive to me.
You don't need to.

and my personal fav... Because it's a sin and the Bible say's so.

[piece-it pete]

No fair !! It would take me all day to write that much!


*"I'm not here to say you can't personally vote your consience, campaign for your favorite politician, believe in God, or help build a nice country... BUT what I am against, is politically motovated vandetta's being issued by anyone who doesn't like the way the vote went! Not to mention the idea that the subject of the vote was at best rhetorical. It just seems that the "church" has a never ending agenda to push it's beliefs on the public in one fashion or another. Initially, it was thru preaching and solicitation. Now that that has ran it's coarse, it's time to MAKE this countries people live a life they don't necessarily wish to live by making laws that reflect the laws of God and further restrict the equality and pursuit of happiness that were some of the goals of the founding fathers. If it was the desire of the founding fathers to make the country run based on the laws of god, we would be forced to go to church as our religions require and 10% of my income would be deducted from my pay and donated to charity. Now we jump ahead 200yrs and look at how many laws we have that restrict what we can do with our lives. Most don't realize just how restrained we are or could be. All it would take is the active enforcement of every current law for a month or so to wake most Americans up! That doesn't count the proposed bills that infest the state and fed gov! Ya know, it used to be that the church was a good place to go to figure things out... to get a handle on life and be thankful for what you do have. Now it seems that it is becomming more a place to go when you don't agree with what your neighbor is doing. To form alliances in an effort to affect other peoples lives in the way that they deem acceptable to God. To somehow validate the word of God by making a law that does so. It's important to me to say I'm not really bashing on believers in general. I have no prob with you believing what you want, raising a family the way you want, and doing what you want with your own lives. I think that's great! REALLY! All I would ask is that I(and others) receive the same treatment that I give to you. There's got to be some realization that Gods law ON EARTH is in addition to mans law on earth and not the other way around. If not, then you induce a belief structure on those who don't believe by forcing them to adhere to a law that promotes such a belief."*

An interesting thing to remember: The law of this country is acknowledged to be derived from God: "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...". Since they (the founding fathers) were Christian, there can be no doubt which creator they were referring to.

But this is really off topic. I mentioned MoveOn, a nonprofit group that HATES GWB. They certainly are included in "politically motovated vandetta's being issued by anyone who doesn't like the way the vote went!". They and many, many others "has a never ending agenda to push it's beliefs on the public in one fashion or another". Gay rights activists come to mind.

If you go back to mans' law, before the US existed, you will find it very harsh and in practice very arbitrary. Gays would have been executed, at the very least mercilessly beaten and thrown out of society, for example.

As far as restrictive laws go, we are more permissive now than ever. Heck, go back even 20 years.

*"the public sale of pornography, prostitution, public display of certain "art", public airing of content to be considered by the church(and other sensitive types) as offensive(Howard Stern for one), gambling, alchohol consumption, birth control, the private use of some naturally occurring "herbs",and the "big A"."* There are quite a few people (not nec. believers) who believe these things should be regulated. This very board has anti-swearing (and other PC based no-nos) software in operation. I personally can't wait till Howard gets the boot, not just because God says so, but because I think he's a dimwitted jerk who coarsens our society, exploits women (like prostitution & porn), and guess what - the public owns the airwaves in this country and has every right to regulate it. There is nothing in the Constitution that tells us we have to accept any of the above. It is our decision, not some powerhungry judge.

Do I tell off-color jokes? Yes. Would I do it in "polite company"? No. Does the majority HAVE to put up with it? No. This is the way our society used to operate - we understood that boundries existed.

*"The laws that are implemented to use as a stepping stones to change other laws.." * Again, this sure sounds like it could be applied to other groups, like gay rights activists or really any large issue group. Are we going to outlaw freedom of speech?

*"...if they have enough money to throw away on a lobbiest to beef up a law that already exists, then they should be taxed."* In fairness, shouldn't this apply to all nonprofits, not just churches? Or will churches be singled out for some reason? What about the Constitution?

*"Is Kansas a battleground state? NO. In the last election and most others in the past 30yrs or so, the state(that is those in the state who have voted) voted something on the order of 65-70% republican. It's considered a gimmie state for the GOP. "*

That's too bad, you should see the acid dripping from these commercials!


*"We've got 5,000,000,000 political commercials running nonstop here in Ohio, at least half of them are not candidate sponsored, but paid for by those nonprofits like MoveOn

Doesn't it make you sick seeing all that money being spent trying to deceive the public about the opposition? Think of how the money could be better spent on solving some of the real problems we face today... like protecting the definition of marriage!(more sarcasm) "*

Yah, but hey - democracy in action. And it's very entertaining!

*"Some nut who believes in killing retarded babies (Kervorkian) had this freedom.

I thought he was for assisted suicide for terminally ill people... Euthinasia. Another activity made illegal in part because religion teaches against it. Funny, we can "put down" most any animal(without their consent) when in pain or suffering but not my grandpa(at his request) when he is suffering from cancer. "*

Oh he was for killing old, infirm, disabled, he was a skinhead nazi. But the press didn't talk much about that.


*And the "crux of the biscuit" of all these speech/religion issues, and the real danger to freedom: who decides?

The question on some of this should be WHY do we need to decide? As I said, some of these things should be taught be the parents to their kids if the parents choose to. Some are already addressed to some extent by laws already on the books. "*

Well, if we start passing laws saying, in effect, this one can attempt to influence politics, this one can't, this one can say A, this one can say B, then SOMEONE will end up with the power to say who can do/say what. And I assure you, they will attempt to forward their own agendas.


*"Why do people feel the need to make laws that forbid the sale of porn due to it's content? Why feel the need to declare a murder of a fetus as a crime in addition to the murder of the mother to be? What's wrong with the penalty, as it is, for murdering ANY person? Not strong enough? Why not make it stronger. Why can't the Howard Stern Show just be re-scheduled to air after 8am weekdays when all kids should be in school or in bed sick? What's wrong with discussing or joking around about bodily fluids or the exchange there of? Why are people so intollerant and easily offended now-a-days? Usually, IMHO, it breaks down to these reasons...

If I can't do it, you can't either.
If I don't WANT to do it, I don't want you to do it either.
I can't stop one person from doing it without stopping everyone.
For the safety of the general public.
For national security.
It's not natural.
It's just not right.
It's not moral.
It's not ethical.
I shouldn't have to look or listen to that and neither should you.
Bad influence on the children.
It's bad for your health.
It's not safe.(for you personally)
It is offensive to me.
You don't need to.

and my personal fav... Because it's a sin and the Bible say's so."*

I think some of those reasons are valid, but it doesn't matter, as the Constitution leaves those decisions to the people (legislatures). As long as that authority is not upsurped we have freedom.

It sounds like the church ("the church". Sounds monolithic, they're not, really, not even close) has a great deal of power in your state. You'll have to organise, lobby, and deliver votes to the politician who most closely matches your beliefs !!

BTW, on the offended & intolerant, I posted a very funny story about a fellow coworker a few months back. I know it's funny, 'cause EVERY SINGLE TIME I've told it it gets laughed at, no exceptions (heck it still makes me smile!), except one. When I posted it here. It's about a guy who goes through a sex change operation then declares he's a lesbian (true story, more hilarious details, very humorous). No one, not one, poster laughed or commented. I believe because it's anti-PC. Very intolerant society we have, now .

Pete

[karl k]

for the time it took to write that last night!

I suppose it's the hypocrisy(sp?) of the whole thing. Yes... I do think the rest of the non-profits should receive the same treatment. I have nothing wrong with an organization making it's point but to expell all that energy and money is wrong IMO. I wasn't picking on any candidate in particular,(GWB vs JK) and I should have been a little more general in the non-profit thing but the article was about this particular org. You make some very good points about fair treatment but I would like to make a distinction about these groups you speak of. Gay rights activists are doing nothing more IMO than trying to be recognized as equals in society. To be accepted for who they are and how they choose to live their lives. To not be held back or persecuted just because they are different. Women still, to this day, have the same problem(to a less extent than before) as well as anyone else who is different. Their agenda is for equality and nothing more.(if I'm way off base here, let me know why) Some of these other groups you speak of are motovated by other means and I think they should be taken out and flogged for the deceiption they spread! People have become so used to the idea that everything and everybody needs regulation. That's where some of these laws come from and that's the "crux" of my problem. When someone makes something or does something, there's always someone out there that wants to control it. To deem it acceptable or not. WHY? Why do we feel this need to make others adhere to what's comfortable to us? You mentioned your desire for Howard to get the boot, how does his broadcast affect you in such a negative fashion that you would be willing to have him removed from the 20mil listeners who like what he has to say?

Another example...

A woman in Salina Ks. was arrested for having a "sex toy" party in her house(like tupperware only it doesn't "burp" quite the same way ) and charged with violating the cities indecency ord. The arrest was based on a complaint from a neighbor down the street that heard about it second hand from one of the participants. Now, why did this "lady" feel compelled to invade her neighbors privacy and prevent her and others from having a little harmless fun in their lives? This would imply that if someone is looking in your window and see's you in your skivvies, that they can turn you in for indecent exposure and get away with it! I blame the church alot(sometimes unfoundly) inherently because of the churchs growing lack of tolerance in society. They preach about what's not in line with God and rush you right out the door to change the world. The bad thing JSE has mentioned is that some are changing the world but still par-take in the very sin they claim to be fighting. It's the hypocrisy, the patronization, the outright deceiption that gets me started. The other... the idea that people feel the need to be better than others and are willing to step on them in an effort to do so. They can't improve themselve enough to satisfy this goal so there's nothing left but to bring the others down a notch and keep them there. It seems to be a case of "I feel special because I can do something and if I let you be special too, then that means I'm not speacial any more." Sorry man, it's like when I asked my dad "Why" and he said "Because I said so". I find that answer not acceptable. Especially as an adult.

Well, I promised the wife I'd spend some time with her and not with Pete tonight so...

Later!