Religion and politics.

Remove all ads!

Freedom from religeon is an attack on Freedom of religeon. Freedom from religeon makes it unconstitutional to discuss religeous topics in the presence of someone that is offended by such. Freedom from religeon implies that it is wrong for a parent to teach their children based off of religeous doctrine. Freedom from religeon means that religeous views should be irrelevent in the political arena. Freedom from religeon is the battle cry for a crusade against Religeon.

I'm a citizen of my country, I pay my taxes. So do most of the members of my church that I attend. We pay our taxes, therefore we are free to practice our religeon. Why, now, should the government be entitled to reach their hands into the tithing envelopes and take more money that is earmarked for the activities of the Church (building meeting houses, financing the production of church materials, financing church programs, helping the needy).

What material power? They aren't trying to get their hands into the tax coffers to finance anything. They aren't trying to get the army to go after a rival faith (at least I assume that they aren't). All they are doing is speaking to all that will listen about moral issues.

The church doesn't support the candidate, the people do. The religeous faithful tend to support those who's moral stance they agree with...

Aren't those two quotes contradictory? Maybe that is why I seem so confused...

Wrong! Ethnicity is a product of ancestry. Homosexuality is a choice.

Excellent point Magpie. Religeon and Politics are fishing in the same pond. The Religeous preach to the people. These same people are the ones that vote in the elections. The only way to deny the church any influence on politics is to silence them totally. Like that's going to happen in any democracy...

Again, my point phrased better than I can by someone else. The difference between the church in the other lobby groups is the size of the audience and the perception of why they listen. The Gay lobby gets their support from those that want the same thing. The Church gets their support from those that want to go to Heaven. Is the objection to the church speaking out on certain issues because the faithful are co-erced?

Thank you Magpie, another point I've been keeping in my arguements. It's not about supporting one particular faith, but politicians can't oppose the religeous if they want to stay in office either...

The people have spoken, the law remanins unchanged. If the 49% don't like it, they can move somewhere else. The Province of Ontario has seen Gay Couples move to Ontario so that they could marry because their state won't legalize it or recognize it when they go back home. That's Democracy.

I've said earlier that Homoosexual actions are a choice, just as having heterosexual relations (outside of legal and lawful marriage) is also a choice. While these choices are becoming more accepted in mainstream society, Religeon still opposes these things. Personally, I agree with the stance of "Don't ask, Don't tell." I don't watch pornography, so why should I want someone's sexual preference thrown in my face?

Those two sentences are contradictory. If they preach morality to the people, many of them will carry that morality with them into the polling station, and it will be reflected on the ballot. The Candidate's name is irrelevant from the pulpit. The stance on the issue is what's relevent.

This is what I've been holding to all along. We sure disagree frequently for two people with the same basic points. But my arguement is that even though the things that you don't agree with aren't being done, there is still some effect on who gets elected...

 

Practicing a religion does not necesseraly involve going to a Church or giving money to a Church. A Church is an institution as are politicial parties, worker unions and corporations. There is really not that big of a difference to me.

Political power is in every way material power.

How exactly are they contradictory? The fact that Churches have no business in politics does not mean that I will silence them or support the banning of religious symbols.

Depends really, but the religious are of course as free to choose their political candidate as anyone else.

Homosexuality is not a choice, committing a homosexual act usually is but homosexuality is not. If you find men to be sexually attractive and not women no matter how hard you try then how can it possibly be a choice? And according to the link I posted I used the word correctly.

A democracy where a 51% of the people has an absolute power over the 49% is a democracy where I sure as hell would not want to live in. The 49% percent are not moving away and neither should they, stating so is absurd. Anyway a new referendum is going to be done in Portugal soon enough and for now the pro choice side seems to be winning.

And I don't go to Church, so why should I want someone's religious preferences thrown in my face?

Of course. The Church will have effect on the referendum or vote no matter what you do (unless you ban them completely). There is a slim difference between morality and politics. Morality is when you preach that abortion is wrong and it becomes politics when you say that voting for abortion is wrong. The first one for me is allright the second is meddling with politics which I don't think is the job of a Church.

I think the disagreement is there because we inteprent these main points a bit differently.

 

@Morgoroth,

I'm not from the Western world.

Agreed. Not all churches make use of the will of God approach and sometimes it's just an overzealous pastor, priest, rabbi etc. But assuming a certain church does the ALLRIGHT stuff, are you amenable to not taxing them?

 

Well I do consider that as long as they are not 100% charity they should be taxed. There is of course trouble when it comes to a particular Church which has its own state and can so pretty well protect its funds from taxation, but if the "threat" of being taxed would make churches to follow those rules then yes I would consider it worth it to ensure the political neutrality of religious institution.

EDIT: I also forgot one point from the NOT ALLRIGHT part. Influencing the society via certain semireligious (political parties excluded) organisations which seek to influence other nonreligious government institutions such as education and courts. Opus Dei is an example of an organisation which practices at the very least "questionable" methods of influencing government institutions.

 

No it does not. Show me where it does.

No, it explicitly states that it is wrong for the state to teach children religious doctrine. What parents do is their own business.

No, it merely means that religious organizations shouldn't get special treatment when it comes to the political arena.

On some lips, perhaps. I've seen nothing indicating that in this thread; or, for that matter, in any remotely respectable publication.

 

That definition is not fully proper, which is one problem, and what they say after "...from other groups" is relevant. Those criteria are to be read jointly and what they are clumsily trying to reflect is nationality. "Ethnos" is nation. Ethnic groups are basically national groups. The mutual co-identification is cultural more than biological, which is correct, but nonetheless, the criteria are social, geographical, linguistic... whatever, just in one word: national. Your reading of the word is bizarre and absurd.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethnic

Not something a priest should ideally do during liturgy, I agree, but how is this example relevant to our discussion? Please? Something like 90% priests pointing fingers at individual homosexuals during their masses and threatening them with hell? In what country?

When someone claims to be a member of a church and attends services while living the exact opposite of what said church teaches with regard to morals, then it's not even a right but a duty of the cleric to set the record straight and inform the person of the spiritual danger.

Just FYI, according to Catholic beliefs, it's possible to end up in hell for missing a single Sunday mass without a good reason. And the priest, if he knows you, should try to talk to you about it, informing you of the proper teaching of the church in the matter and of the danger to your soul. Should he make an exception from the general rule for homosexual acts just because it's "progressive" and trendy? For the sake of what -- the individual's comfort? Religion is about salvation, not about comfort. If his comfort is his dearly beloved chief concern, the person doesn't need religion in the first place but may as well come to the church as a tourist.

I have to point out the double standard and also the absurdity of the whole sensitivity and political correctness notion. That hardly is logic.

Show me my double standards, please, and point out where exactly my logic fails. Your usage of words may well be excused, but nonetheless doesn't hold as correct and contributes to the confusion created by double standards.

The latter is your imagination, sorry. If I speak about carnivorous plants at one time and about beavers some time later, it doesn't mean that beavers are carnivorous plants.

That's rich. Now where did you get that from and what do you have to support it?

Agreed, that shouldn't be done. However, when there are two candidates of whom one supports abortion and priests tell you about the evils of abortion, it tends to be interpreted as supporting an individual candidate. So, as a result, when the priest preaches against abortion itself, he is told to... preach against abortion itself, not a candidate. This is absurd.

Voting in favour of abortion is against the will of God according to most Christian churches. I don't want to delve into candidates who happen to support abortion, but voting for such a candidate specifically for the sake of his pro-abortion views has been considered as grounds for excommunication in the Catholic church. There is no such thing as having the cake and eating it.

Therefore, in so far as homosexuality is independent from individual choice, there is no sin in orientation alone. Inclination is not a sin. You can't go to hell for being homosexual and if a priest were to say something like this, he would say a heresy. But what depends on choice can be sinful. As such, a consensual homosexual intercourse is considered a sin. Note that consensual heterosexual intercourse between anyone else than a married couple is also considered a sin. This is because the proper place for sex is marriage, where sex serves for the expression and improvement of the bond between the spouses and spreading the gift of life, and any sex besides that is considered a sin if a result of an informed decision. As with any sin, actually. Therefore, there hardly is any special bad treatment of homosexual persons. As for homosexuality itself, yet again, while the orientation itself is morally neutral, it's not licit to choose if you have choice, it's not licit to treat on par with the heterosexual orientation as something normal and proper, it's not OK to teach kids that they should give it a try and so on and so forth.

Nonsense. Firstly, there is no such thing as freedom from religion. Secondly, freedom of religion includes being free to have no religious convictions whatsoever. Of course, politeness and kindness should always be observed, but that's it.

 

That definition is used by that oh so notorious gay lobby who are very eager to call homosexuals an ethnic group. Of course I assume you disagree but the Finnish press frequently uses that term when talking about homosexual groups. You do understand that words get additional meanings in time and that an additional meaning is used unofficially before it gets printed in any dictionary? I'm sure your official version of the word is right and I won't start to argue with you about the correct usage of a word, that would not be productive and in all ways useless.

Perhaps to you but others use the words in similar ways too and it certainly is not bizarre and absurd for them.

That which is a double standard or a unlogical statement to you might not be that for everyone. Logic is subjective in many ways and apperntly my logic differs much from yours.

I do not think you have any but neither do I consider myself to have stated any double standards or failiures in logic.

When a priest is called a bigot I assume it is because something he said and then the attack goes more against his oppinions and speeches than against him in person. I suppose someone could call a priest a bigot without any provocation but somehow I find that very unlikely, atleast I have not heard of such cases. Calling homosexuals fags or blacks niggers is often done without provocation and comes from shear intolerance and/or racism. This is all circumstantial of course but if calling a priest a bigot comes from something he says (i.e homosexuality is a sin) it's not illegal while if a homosexual is called a fag because he has committed a homosexual act it becomes discriminative slander. That is how the law in here work, I find no double standards in it I can't help it if you do though and won't bother starting to convince you otherwise. I do not enjoy bashing my head in a brick wall.

Perhaps it would then be better that you discuss the problems with the drow society in the d&d forum instead of bringing it a serious discussion as an absurd an irrelevant example.

Probably from the same place where you got your view, from my basic logic, but I assume you will again claim that it fails and start babbling about the unnaturality of homosexuality, if I assume correctly then don't bother, this thread is really not about homosexuality.

Woo, a point in your post I actually agree with, how strange. Anyway I do not "tend to" interpret it that way and some leftists will use every opportunity to silence religious speakers and complain just about anything they say. That is however not the case here, well except for commies perhaps but their precentage of votes is somewhere under 1% so they don't get much time in the media anyway and even less influence in politics.

Now let's have a little test shall we. Do you find being shot to death by someone worse than being excommunicated and therefore be denied from your place in heaven? I assume you also consider threatening to shoot someone if they do not vote for issue X to be wrong. Then logically threatening someone with excommunication if they do not vote for issue X is much worse than threatening with shooting to to death?

I do think I just detected a failiure of logic and a double standard.

I won't comment your last point about homosexuality other than say that there are several points there that I disagree with. This thread is not about homosexuality and it has derailed this topic too much allready. Additionally I will not agree with you about your views about homosexuality and you will not agree with my views and I doubt there is much we can learn from each other by debating the issue so I would prefer to let it rest at least in this thread.

 

I'm really deeply disappointed to see that remark. It proves the worst fears of those who believe that the American experiment is doomed to failure, as weill as the aspirations of those who wish to see America fail.

The American dream is one of freedom for the INDIVIDUAL not the majority. To be sure, the majority has a large part of the say, but as a nation we agree that the individual is the basic component of the American Politik. His/her rights and representation are fundamental for the system to succeed. Such comments are a betrayal of the American experience.

[ May 16, 2005, 16:18: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

But it’s about what churches do with that money. They don’t accumulate money for the sake of having wealth. They use that money to help the needy and to enable their faith to spread. Taxing them is a slap in the face to those that donate.

But the Church isn’t selecting the candidates. The reason for the church’s influence is the fact that they have a larger support group than most other lobby groups.

This is a point where religion and science contradict. Therefore, this would continue as a tangent. My faith claims that same sex attraction is a temptation to commit a sin. The act of having sex, regardless of the gender of the partner, is a decision. It is as much of a sin to have sex with another man as it is for me to have sex with a woman that is not my legal and lawful wife.

In a referendum, it is half plus one that makes the law. You don’t like it, there’s the road. If the new referendum votes 51% for divorce and 49% against divorce, then the law should be changed.

You called me out on mine. I don’t walk up to people and ask intimate sexual questions. I don’t start topics like that either. When the question of Religion comes up, I put my views into the discussion. You started this thread and disagreed with the influence that the church has politically, you asked for this.

That’s like saying that it’s wrong for the religious people to have extramarital sex, but okay for everyone else to do that. That’s BS. We are taught that our morals are absolute. We want leaders that hold our values as such. The only people that should be offended are the sinners.

So a group of PEOPLE has no right to oppose certain objectionable teachings on Religious grounds? That too is BS. If the Gay rights lobby has the right to speak, then so too do these “semi-religious” groups that you speak of. Quite often, they don’t speak for one particular sect, but a wide variety of sects to preserve their values. Again, it’s not promoting one particular sect over another, but banding together to make their voice heard. If you don’t want the people to have the right to speak, then maybe Democracy is not for you…

Freedom from religion means that religious groups don’t have the right to preach their beliefs outside of certain areas designated for worship. It means that Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons can’t send people out to the homes of people to invite them to religious meetings. The implication is that it violates the rights of the irreligious to have their time taken up with this.

But parental teaching is the same as forcibly feeding religious doctrine to the children, violating their freedom from religion. This also may contradict the teachings of the school system in some cases.

I don’t think they do. I think they are more successful because they have more people supporting them. Because they have the numbers, the politicians listen.

Some groups or individuals believe that Religion is imposing itself too much in daily life. Religion doesn’t force people to do anything, only state the consequences of not obeying. It provides a list of things that we ought to do, and things we ought not do if we seek to go to Heaven. If you don’t follow the tenets of Religion then you don’t go to heaven. It doesn’t force you to do anything…

Words intentionally misused by a political group to lead the public to a stance more sympathetic to their cause. They want to be treated the same as any other ethnic group. This should offend some of the other ethnic groups out there…

No, Excommunication is much worse than being physically killed. Physical death will happen to all of us at some point. But Excommunication is basically exclusion from the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Excommunication is a punishment for a grievous sin against God. Pope John Paul basically threatened Excommunication to those who would vote in favour of Same Sex Marriage in the House of Commons and the Senate in Canada’s Parliament. Jean Chretian claimed to be a Catholic, but was not willing to support the Church’s stance on that issue. This, if I’m not mistaken, is heresy.

The Majority has spoken. The majority did not want Divorce to be a reality in their country. In Canada, there was a referendum about 12 years ago on an amended constitution. 51% voted against this, and 49% voted in favour. Should that be enforced even though the majority didn’t approve?

If the people can’t be trusted, then why give them the vote? If many of them can be swayed by religion, then they shouldn’t be free to decide for themselves. If this sounds like BS, I agree with you there. It’s about the majority getting their way when it’s an either/or situation. Some issues aren’t always win/win. Sometimes one side has to lose. And as long as there is a significant portion of the population that supports Religion, those that oppose could end up on the short end of the ballot box…

 

Ah, yes. Here I thought we were speaking of a situation in America. But I had the wrong country. In America we have a constitution that protects the rights of the individual against the "tyranny of the majority." Most of those who founded America (such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) were enemies of tyranny and oppression. They understood that it could take many forms, inluding hiding behind a phony mask of "democracy."

Thus, they created safeguards to protect the individual from different forms of oppression. Freedom of speech is one such freedom, as is freedom of the press. It is not for the majority, but for an individual, or group of individuals to form oppostition to popular rule.

In this instance, the legislature may pass a law that prohibits free speech, but an independent Supreme Court may decide that such a law is unconstitutional - against the majority wishes. And it may not become law. In this way individual rights are protected. At least that's how it is here. In Canada it may be different.

 

Man, you guys have such long posts. Sometimes I can't follow anymore.

@Morgoroth,

What countries in particular are you referring to? I was going to assume the US but you're not American. Here we really don't experience it much. But that maybe due more to the way politics here is rather than for lack of trying by certain religious leaders. There is one church here though that tells its followers to vote for the presidential candidate of its choice. I know many will find the idea repugnant but it's really not a big deal here. It is mainly due to the culture of tolerance here, which has both postive and negative effects. Also some say that the leaders of this church supports the candidate who it thinks is going to win and are just playing it safe.

Oh, here, we Jesuit-trained guys often view Opus Dei as our ideological opposite. They are arguably the most conservative Catholic religious order around.

 

Well when there are these "ufo cults" etc. who use this funding to clone people, I'm sure you agree that you don't want them to use their tax-exempt status to gather wealth for such projects? Well neither do I and I'm not for making any exceptions among Churches, some may have fully noble and acceptable goals with their money while some such collect the money or use it to decorate their churches with gold or whatever.

Gay lobby groups do not seek to influence government institutions such as the courts, neither do most of the semi-religious groups. There are a few exceptions however to this. Speaking is a way to influence these but you can't skip through parlamentary system and directly influence the courts or education by speaking. When the gay lobby groups do anything to skip the parlamentary system to get their will through then let me know and surely will condemn them as I would condemn any religious institution.

Well I'm not blaming you for throwing your religious preference around, so I'm not sure why you are blaming me for that. Neither am I yelling to you my sexuality. However such as there are people who throw their sexual preferences out on the streets there are also people who try to shove the bible/coran/whatever down my throat while I walk on the steerts and they are real pain to get rid of I can tell you that.

I want to thank you for confirming my point. Threatening with excommunication is worse than threatening with a gun. So logically the Catholic Church is acting equally (if not even more) immorally in that case as a dictator who with the threat of death preassurizes people to vote for him. The Church is no exception for me in this regard, trying to reglate the voting behaviour of the people by fear is wrong under all circumstances. The Catholic Church therefore acts immorraly when it threatens with excommunication at such cases as you presented above.

Chandos, well said. I would have said something similar but you probably expressed it much better than me.

Depends at which point of my posts. Sometimes I refer to Scandinavia sometimes just to Finland and sometimes to the entire EU. These are the countries I have been referring to in my posts I think. The problem for me answering to that question is that I have posted quite a few posts in this threads I'm not sure exactly what reference you are referring to, but if you could post me PM about where my references are clear then I can surely clarify it to you and if required edit my post.

 

Morgoroth,

While I agree with 99% of what you are saying, I have to admit that I have never heard the word "ethnicity" used to describe one's sexual category. For example, if someone asked me what my ethnicity was, I surely wouldn't reply "heterosexual". I would rather respond that my ethnicity is Italian and Slovak. If heterosexuality isn't an ethnicity, than surely homosexuality can't be either. To me ethnicity always refered to country of origin. If hetero/homosexuals are an ethnicity, then heck, being MALE OR FEMALE should constitute an ethnicity. It just doesn't make sense.

Also I really tried to stay out of this, but I can't resist this:

If you mean the Christian view of "wait until you're married" then that's exactly what it means. People who follow that belief do in fact believe it is wrong, but people who aren't religious think it's OK. I think I would be accurate in saying more people have sex before marriage than do not (especially in most Western countries), and I think just as many of them don't think of themselves as "sinners".

 

Well I can back down on the ethnicity thing, it's really not that important to me, but there are groups that use it in a different meaning. You can go to them and yell that it's wrong but I have a feeling they would not listen.

 

That's the price we pay for having our freedom to donate to our religious organization without the government taking their cut off the top. If these are fraudulent, then they will be caught and all their funds confiscated. The charge of decoration is harder to answer. If you've ever seen pictures taken of Mormon Temples before they are dedicated, you'll know that they are absolutely beautiful. I doubt that they are cheap to construct. The belief there is that the Temple is the House of the Lord, and that nothing is too good for the Lord. There are about 125 all over the world, active ones built over about 150 years.

I don't have a handy link, but in Canada, they have done just that, and sucessfully gained rulings in Ontario and British Columbia that stated that denying marriage to Homosexuals was unconstitutional. They went to the courts because the politicians were dragging their heels. I await the opportunity to read your scathing criticism of that action.

The crime is Heresy. To claim to be a member of a church, but to preach doctrines contrary to that of said church. That crime always has been punishable by excommunication.

To a point that's needed, but there is a place where the majority's wishes must be recognized. In 11 states, the question of allowing same sex marriage was put on the ballot. In all 11 states, the motion was defeated. Would you thus advocate ignoring the will of the people in this case?

I know. Because of the change of page, I wrote my last response on Microsoft Word. It was 3 pages!

 

I agree, the majority has a large part of the say and representation. And gay marriage is not necessarily protected by the Bill of Rights. And I agree that this is more of a state by state issue than it is a national issue, since the national Constitution makes no provision for it. But to be honest, this is a non-issue for me.

I will add that the Declaration might be useful here depending on how one defines the "pursuit of happiness." Although this is not a legal document, it is nevertheless a statement of founding principles.

 

Heresy. Jean Chretian is a spokesperson of the church? "I know what the doctrine of the church is but I don't agree." This is not really heresy, isn't it? "The Catholic Church looks benignly on abortions." This would be heresy if uttered by a Catholic.

 

It is difficult to say where the line of fraudlent usage of funds goes since the inflow of funds can't be supervised as it's not taxed. Therefore taxing would an excellent method of forcing the Churches to keep proper bookeeping of their inflow and outflow of funds.

This case is once again clearly about speaking, not having your own judge in the court to look for your groups intrests, in other words infiltration if you will. To complain to the courts about something being unconstitutional is quite usual and even though I have to admit I did not take that option into consideration there are several cases in here where the religious groups have done the same about the same issue just favoring the denial of gay marriage. Anyway this procedure must exist to protect the citizen's constitutional rights and I'm sure you agree about that. So that point really does not include filing complaints, reports, appeals or anything like that which follows correct beurocratic procedures, I guess I should have made that clear.

I can't say that I support the argument that it would be in any way constitutional to provide gay marriage unless the constitution states it out quite clearly, it seems like a desperate attempt and I'm sure it failed, correct?

To me this issue is a double egded sword really. On the one hand the Church is allowed to choose its members and therefore it has the right to excommunicate people. On the other hand when it does so on political grounds I'll have to say it acts immorally. If the Catholic Church excommunicated everyone who supported the legalization of abortion they would have a whole bunch of people to excommunicate. Of course this would destroy the Catholic community quite efficently and divide the Church beyoned repair so they won't do that nor will they seek to do that, but allways when a politician talks loudly enough about abortion they start yapping. Quite simply to me it's hypocracy. Either you excommunicate from supporting abortion or you don't, there is no middle ground. Tossing around (usually empty) threats about excommunication definently is immoral and wrong in every way.

EDIT: Oh and just out of curiosity, was John Chertian excommunicated or not? And did the threat from the pope make him back down about his stance on the abortion?

[ May 17, 2005, 12:00: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

So in other words, the courts were doing their job (regardless of whether or not you agree with the ruling). What's your point?

 

In terms of religion -vs- politics, there is a fundamental difference when it comes to gay marriage (although I didn't really need to tell anyone here that, did I?). In Church terms, marriage is the sanctified union of a man and a woman before the eyes of God. To politicians, marriage is often no more than a legal contract between two people, leading to tax breaks, etc. There is no intrinsic reason that this contract, therefore, cannot be made between two people of the same gender. Essentially, church dissent to "gay marriage" is to the nomenclature; they don't want what they see to be morally wrong put under the same catch-all title as a cornerstone of their faith.

There is, of course, a difference between a civil ceremony and a Church one; no one should force a priest to marry anyone, particularly not if it could get them excommunicated. Politically, if there is a general desire for a such a contract to be available, there is no other reason than personal religious feeling to deny it. On the issue, then, of ensuring the separation of Church and state, there is no reason to deny homosexuals a civil ceremony of this sort; as Ontario and BC have ruled. But what to call it? As far as I care, call it "Bobo's happy fun club civil partnership contract". Call it Dave. Either option would kill most of the debate happening; it is only, truly, that word marriage that is so devisive, as it comes loaded with so much meaning for so many people. Meaning that, legally, is irrelevant.

So, we could separate marriage from the state entirely; let the Churches have their ceremony to themselves. Anyone, not just homosexual couples, would be entering a civil contract, unless they went to Church for a religious marriage ceremony. But I can't see this happening; it's a very extreme degree of separation of Church and state, that probably goes too far. I doubt, too, whether the Churches would like to be shoved out of the process to this degree, or whether ordinary people would take to it. Unfortunately, though, we have a debate where both sides - religion and politics - have different definitions of what they're arguing about; such definitional debates are, by their nature, insoluble, unless one or the other side backs down and accepts the other's definition (believe me; that is what this really comes down to). And the odds of that happening? Almost - but perhaps not quite - nil.

[ May 17, 2005, 16:20: Message edited by: The Magpie ]