Search results

The Roman Empire? Louis XIV? How was the church the government in either of those cases? Their senate wasn't the clergy and when Rome bordered on dictatorship (or went past bordering on), the caesar still wasn't the religious leader. Henry VIII is an interesting case though, but there aren't...

The answer to that question varies greatly with region. In our country, the only example I can think of was before we were a country, in colonial times. The Puritans were highly theocratic. But I don't know that they revolutionized marriage. They've certainly had an influence on our society and...

Cugel *Covers Wilhelm*

Religious institutions were the government as recently as post #27?

Should have seen that one coming. Si'Nat shooting at something that isn't or might not be an enemy--again.

And when was this?

Hm. I think I'm biased on that one. I don't believe that there is a good purpose behind state-sanctioned marriage, although there are certain good things about it people should be able to take advantage of. But the religious purpose? Well, doesn't it depend on your religion?

I thought from the title that this was about that spammer who posted the same thing in multiple boards on this site...

"I fail to see how stealth might help one traversing an open area such as this, but I will offer to investigate the bodies."

Happy birthday.

Conviction for YOUR religion, you mean. Would a Hindu who has great religious conviction acknowledge "that God had a reason for creating Man and woman"? Well, we've had problems with the whole "separate but equal" thing in the past. But to me, at least, the name seems kind of trivial. I think...

Let us know how it turns out!

Well, it depends on what counts as "liberal." Is there a particular sort of case that serves as a good benchmark for this?

Yeah, but corn in the United States is, if I'm not mistaken, the most subsidized crop in the world. And it's quite the cash crop.

I'll admit it's nitpicking. But I don't think of it as my own choice of words. I don't know. It seems fairly standard. As far as a "bill of responsibilities" I do think it's a great idea. But responsibilities vary from person to person. A list of universal human responsibilities would be pretty...

Oh. Of course. That makes sense. I wasn't thinking of sets for some reason...

So someone who has never committed a crime and has no intention of doing so is a danger to society?

Um, well, I know what "FAQ" stand for. But not "TS" or "MT."

"Shall we investigate the room?"

I think Istanbul was lurking semi-recently.