Back to the topic, this story reminded my of a proposed mosque in London I recall seeing a story on year or so ago, and, after searching for it, this recent article mentions it was recently scraped.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... tests.html

Highly doubtful there are any members of a Tea Party in the UK...and it appears to have gotten much uglier there.

Remove any one of those factors and there is no death. That is the good intention, even if misplaced. And since they can't ban driving, they ban alcohol where other places just ban drunk driving.

But banning drunk driving is also a morality judgement. Drunk driving used to carry a light punishment. And most drunk drivers never harm anyone.

So it's all a matter of degree.

There are anti-Muslims in the UK, though.

Nah we have the British national party and the English defense league, combat 18 etc.

Been around in various forms since the 1970'ies largely due to large amounts of Pakistani immigration and then intergeneration into British society. You know silly immigrants coming over and not leaving their culture and belief systems at the immigration office. Rubs some people the wrong way.

They also don't like the afro-Caribbean element as well, but they seem to have forgotten about that largely.

Just xenophobia at the end of the day propped up by the last decades burst of anti-islamic sentiment.

FYI the story was about a mosque in Dudley, which is in the west midlands.

The midlands is pretty dire and along with sections of the north (of england), its where most of the bigoted hilarity in the uk goes down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley

The welsh and scotish just hate the english generally, quite accepting of migrants in both cases. The south of england for the most part is largely too middle class and rich to give a damn.

It's a matter of degree when there's a chance the act in question won't result in harm to others in society. With child molesting, murder and rape there really isn't that possibility. Not really legislating morality so much as trying to protect the populace. But that's just semantics I guess.

When I read the OP, I thought finally, a topic that both liberals and conservatives can agree on. First, that any band of folks can call themselves a "tea party" then proceed to behave in a hateful, anti-American manner... and Second, that freedom of religion is precious to ALL of us.

Good thing I read through the thread before I posted that sensible first impression. Now my impression is... WTF? The mind boggles at how any of you could have found something to argue about in that article... but damn me, you sure as hell did. Not that most of it made a lick of sense...

*wanders off, shaking head*

I was told that one as a kid going to the Baptist church. They only had Communion on the holy holidays and used grape juice. And, I misstated. It was the writers of the Bible, they said, didn't understand that wine wasn't fermented back in the days of Jesus, so wine wasn't really wine then, just juice. (Guess the "hand of God" slipped off his writing hand for just a minute and things got a little murky).

I went to a southern baptist church as a child and never heard anything like that.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that is sort of bizarre. Maybe they just told you that because you were a kid or something.

Capt~I think it was just that person's interpretation and explanation. I'd been to several different Bible Study groups as a kid(I quit even trying before I hit 18) and learned very young that we weren't there to study the Bible. We were there to get the Study leader's version of the Bible preached to us. No room for open discussion and thoughts or impressions. I even saw a church member asked not to return for saying he didn't agree with a leader.

Also, keep in mind that there is Baptist, American Baptist, Independent Baptist, Southern Baptist, Reformed Baptist etc, etc, and the same goes with many other sects because people don't agree on the interpretations. I believe the one I was in at the time was Independent(not sure though) but it was the closest thing my mom could find to Southern Baptist in Wyoming. They were pretty much Teetotalers, so they needed something to back it up.

See, I find that odd. I've argued this with too many of the elders in the Baptist churches I formerly attended.

In fact, I recently argued this with my friend's grandfather. A former baptist preacher no less.

They can't seem to understand that grape juice wouldn't have been able to keep in the day of Christ. That's why they were fermented. So the drink would keep.

Pretty easy logic. But they still tote that line.

Yeah well, ok. Maybe they think they are helping you out or something. That's not really a bad thing, even if you may find it a little annoying.

I personally think people have freedom in Christ and that the teachings of Y'shua reflect this. But with freedom comes responsibility.

Here's the perspective I'm coming from. I drank heavily for many years but quit when I became a Christian at the age of 38 after having a religious experience that changed my life and way of thinking. I personally do not have a very high opinion of alcohol consumption because of the effects it had on my life and on the lives of many, many people I've known in my life. But I wouldn't presume to tell people not to drink, even though it has killed many of my friends and family and is still killing many more of them.

Some of these people you have talked to may have had similar experiences and think they are helping you out.

Now, the Bible doesn't tell people not to drink, but it does proscribe drunkeness. Some people can drink without getting out of control. I'm not one of them, I've learned. You may not feel this way about drinking. If this is so I don't have a problem with it.

BTW I do not participate in denominational Christianity so I am not representing the views of any particular denomination.

I'm not a Baptist myself, but my father's parents were and some of my friends are. I do know that there is a reference in the Bible (Hebrews? I'm not sure) about letting the poor man drown his sorrows. My understanding is that the Baptist point is that Christ stated that He wouldn't partake of the juice of the vine until His Father's kingdom had been established on earth.

Perhaps I'm mistaken--I'm a baptised Roman, Anglican-reared, Sacred Heart-educated Roman "convert." But I think this is the deal--that if Jesus wasn't going to drink wine again, His followers shouldn't either.

I was raised Baptist and I can attest to that. Communions involved grape juice and not wine. Baptists, at least the ones in Maine where I grew up, were very straight laced. A little too straight laced if you ask me.