This controversy between James Dobson and Obama reminded me of an off-topic debate that was started on another thread between me and Arne. The questions were raised about if the bible was at odds with the constitution. Here's the debate


I also made the claim that any true Christian will eventually find themselves at odds with the constitution. I opened another thread awhile back that describes how I believe free speech allows religion to attack free speech.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on the subject. But if you don't have much to say on the subject, you could at least answer the poll questions.

I voted 99%, Yes, and Obama.

I voted 99% because I think that the Bible is essentially tolerant and supportive of all but the most oppressive and disfunctional forms of government, and typically urges people to obey the law as their Christian (or Jewish) duty. I think that there are circumstances where the Bible might counsel one to break the law (an example would be 19th Century laws enforcing slavery), but those are the rare exception.

And when I speak of the Bible I mean how I interpret it. And I am not a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are a lot more literal than I, but they disagree amongst themselves as to what the Bible means precisely. So I am simply not going to even attempt to speak for them.

I believe the Bible to be a holy book, but not literally true word for word. And if I must make a choice I will choose the will of God over the will of the state, law or constitution. But I think that in vast majority of cases no choice is called for, that the correct thing to do is to obey the law, and there is no serious incompatibility between the constitution and the Bible.

Hmmm. I voted less than 50%. No the Bible is less tolerant of the Constitution, and Obama.

I say this because of the OT which is more than fifty percent of the Bible, and there is much in there that I reject as being either God's Will or His Word. The Bible is a book written by men. They (some of them) may have been "inspired" men. Some even "Wise" men but they were men.

It seems to me the Hebraic Tradition had some civilizing aspects to it that distinguished the philosophy of the Jewish People from the surrounding older religions. But I guess you had to be there at the time to see what they were up against from the competing religions. Old Testament apologists (like Dennis Prager) argue that the Old Testament sought to raise the human species from the "animal-like" cultures of death to the divine and life affirming. But the recounting of massacres supposedly decreed by "God", and instances of punishments declared for "offenses" like adultery and homosexuality and plenty of others against this "God" belie that at least in my mind. Prager argues (or at least posts arguements on his website) that man is essentailly beastial and perverse, and that therefore culture and religion must circumscribe his behavior with rules and edicts from on high that will be to his benefit.

The history of mankind (that we know of) certainly seems to make that a strong arguement, except when we look at the role all religions played in encouraging that beastly behavior. It does come down to interpretation, but in a theocracy there is no appeal from the interpretation of the highest hieretical religious authority of whatever sacred text. And after all did we really need a God to tell us that lying, robbery, murder, and trying to steal another's mate was wrong? Maybe some did and do, but I think Christ summed it up with the "Golden Rule".

If Religion in general was just another dressed up version of "the Golden Rule" I would not have any objection to it. And in fact in the hearts of many religious people it is just that or mostly that, and so I have no objection to them either. My problem comes as a citizen when it is about forcing something on me that I don't accept. In fact that attempt to force ones religion on me or anyone else is breaking the Golden Rule itself IMO.

Before someone says that I advocate anything goes and total freedom, I say there is no such thing among people who have to live amongst other people. We are constrained in our own absolute sovereignty by the rights and innate sovereignty of others. If we are going to co-operate there must be rules, but they IMO should be open to being modified as conditions change and examined and challenged when found flawed. Women particularly, (with claims to the contrary by Prager) have been oppressed by the partiarchal edicts of the Judaic Religion.

He charges that the Hellenistic and other non-Judaic cultural and religious tolerance and even celebration of homosexualty as evidence of their mysogny towards women. But many cultures have been mysognistic, and devaluing women is much older than Hellas or the Bible. Nor is the Bible free of it, in fact it can be argued that if you can't give women a rose and romance them, at least don't beat or kill them and force them into virtual slavery.

The problem with religion and the OT particularly is that it is frozen as the "Word of God" in the Fudamentalist's mind. And how does even one who is not Fundamentalist mantain credibility about the book's "Holiness" by being selective? It is either "God's" Will and those are His Words; that homosexuals and adulterers and witches and blasphemers, etc., be put to death, or it is not God's Will, and those are not His words. Which is it then?

I can not vote on this because the separation of church and state is in the constitution.
What I will say is when ministers preach the bible they preach old testament prognostication.
The new testament is the life of Christ which Christianity is based on. Christ was born, Christ died for all mens sins and Christ rose again to give all hope.

All Obama did was point out old testament. By the way the bible is sexist in case no one noticed. Also the old testament is full of a lot of anger, hate, revenge and a history of wars.

Good input TROU

I see the OT as more of a history lesson (much of it fiction or fable), but not as much law as the NT. Laws of the OT were fulfilled (abolished in effect) by the NT. But that's just my take. As I have become more atheistic in the past decade, I see the whole Bible as more of a philosophy book than a book of laws.

I'm the person who said they are not at all compatible. That is not to say that they can non co-exist
because they do co-exist. One must choose which is the ultimate Authority for Governemnt. In a humanitarian, constitutional democracy, the authority for Government is based on the Social
Contract, US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Speaking mainly of the NT (New Testament), the part where Christianity comes from, I chose 50% to 99% because I see them as compatible on most human-rights issues. Both the constitution and the bible are doctrines of human-rights. The only things I see them as not compatible on is the freedom of religion part. The constitution accepts freedom of religion. If a true Christian follows the NT of the Bible, they are taught not to just accept other religions or atheism. Even though they are not called upon to force their religion on others, they are called upon to evangelize, which some interpret to mean through legislation and government sponsorship. I personally don't think that the Bible calls on Christians to use secular government other than to submit to it to keep the peace. But it doesn't obviously tell them not to either, which may be the problem. A true Christian will see the Bible (the supposed word of God) as the ultimate governing authority. So in most of their minds, there is no reason to have a secular government. When given power and opportunity, I can see how a Christian would be easily tempted to believe that God is working through them to use that power to evangelize. Christianity is in opposition of alternate governing authorities and doctrines in the mildest way possible.

"In the mildest way possible," until the Crusades start up again every few years.

That's due to a distorted interpretation of Christianity rather than what the doctrine actually calls for. I suspect the Koran interpretations are distorted in the same way for the purpose of global Jihad.

Actually, if Bill wanted to be honest he who admit that the genesis for this idea came from my statement that Lou Dobbs by his statements against immigration was being anti-American (going against the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence) and anti-Christian.

But Bill is known for obfuscating...so...

Let's try and get the whole debate represented...

Which one would rather do without, the Bible or the Constitution?

Now that is a good question.

I pray that is a choice I will never have to make.

By doing without, I guess you would been --- never existed ---

Well, if the Bible is my article of faith regarding God - who the Native Americans revere as the Creator --- and if as the creator he created all --- and by rejecting the Bible -- I reject all that he is --- then I would not exist if I rejected the Bible...

Now -- as for the Constitution...the Constitution established our government --- without the Constitution does that mean there would be no American government? Then I would likey never have been born -- because it was the attraction of America which lured my ancestors here --- and eventually ended up in my parents getting together...

Its an imposisble question I think.

Simplifying it to which in my present everyday life I would rather do without --- I think it is another impossible question...

I live my life as a Christian in America...

If I gave up the Bible --- I do not know that I could continue without God in my life --- I suppose I could --- but its not a desireable outcome...

If I gave up the Constitution I might be unable to worship my religion...and enjoy the religious freedoms I have...

I voted 50-99% --- No and Obama...

Taken to its logical conclussion, the question becomes to what source do you prefer the authority of Government to be based on, a social contract in the form of a Constitution and Bill of Rights or
the Courts interpretation of Christian Scripture?

Well there are all kinds of interpretations of what is the "true" interpretation of the Bible. I can only speak to how I interpret it and what meaning I derive from it. I don't see it authorizing Christians to use the state in the service of evangelizing. Now I think most would say that it should be used to protect evangelizing (within reasonable limits, such as forbidding harassment) as an expression of the First Amendment, but not just by Christians. Remember rendering unto Caesar and rendering unto God.

You cannot "believe" in a religion if you don't make some exclusive claims for it. But that does not rule out tolerance of other beliefs (including non- and anti-religious ones) in the society. So a "true Christian" can accept tolerance and the Constitution, at least most of the time.

Which one would you rather do without, your lungs or your liver?

Now those who are neither Christians or Jews would have no problem doing without the Bible, but that fact is of course trivial.

Actually I don't see the original question becoming that, as I don't see accepting the Bible within a reasonable Christian context as mandating that courts should be interpreting Christian scripture for people. I don't see that at all.

I see God as providing the authority for all human government, but I also see that He has not mandated a particular form of government for all of history. So I think that humanity has ample freedom to choose a government based upon democratic principles with a Constitution as we have. I do think that governments go against God when they rule unjustly. But in most cases I see no reason why Christians cannot oppose unjust rule within the bounds of the Constitution.

Well, if you put it in those terms, I think we have agreement that the Constitution rather than the Bible should be our guide, but the original point seemed a little more vague at least to me.

Great insights.

I did like the original question, though.

I think you are proposing an invalid analogy. Both the liver and the lungs have part-whole relations
with the human organism. And no, the concerns of persons who are neither Christian or Jew are not
trivial in humanitarian constitutional democracies.

Actually the Thread is not about, "God." It is about the writing in the Constitution and the
writing in scripture and which is the most usefull for governing. Even the people who call themselves Christians don't all believe that, "God provides the authority for all human government."

Of course I did not mean that non-Judeo-Christians and their concerns are trivial, and I find it hard to believe that you don't know that!

What is trivial is the fact that they don't need (or don't perceive a need for) the Bible. That is the equivalent of saying that a student in an art class does not need an engineering textbook for that class. That is a trivial fact, but that does not mean that either that student, his or her concerns, art, or the art class are trivial. I trust that you can understand that.

The question here is need, not whether something is an integral part of a whole. If I want to get someplace signficantly faster than I can walk then I need some kind of vehicle and a way (path, road, air lane) available for that vehicle to travel. That is true even though neither say a car nor a road is part of me. I still need them and cannot do without either of them.

When we talk about things like holy books and constitutions we are getting into a more subjective area of need, a matter of perceived social needs that people argue about, but that does not make those needs less real, just harder to determine. It does not matter that one is not part of your organism. (I would not think that you would maintain that the Constitution is a part of our human organism, but the Bible is not.)

And these two documents address different aspects of these subjectively determined social needs.

Um, if you weren't so quick to attack, you'd see that I not only linked back to the thread which the debate came from, but I also re-posted the same quote you redundantly re-posted which shows the original question to you.

But you see Taz, that question was off topic of the original thread, which had already been hijacked and redirected from the original question of "why Lou was on Obama's case" to "everything you hate about Lou," nevermind Obama. I did the right thing by starting a new thread for the new topic and question raised. You just don't seem to get why that is important to do for the sake of visitors to CGCS. And we wonder why membership is shrinking.

I think you mean that Christians don't believe that God approves of all human government. Many Christian see God as the ultimate authority over everything (including Hell) and that the universe is just a part of Gods larger domain.

Neither the Constitution or the Bible are part of the human organism while both heart and liver are,
which is why it was not a valid analogy.

Perhaps. The only point I'm trying to make here is that there is very little consensus among persons who self-identify as Christians, or even among so-called Christian experts, as to how this is assumed to work--God having ultimate authority over all government and all of everything.

Most reasonable moderate Christians would agree. But there is a significant number of Christians who see the bible as the better form of government than any secular government, and the only one needed.

I agree with rla that the heart lung analogy is not very accurate. Most atheist see the bible as a drug or placebo, if not a waste product of the body. Many Christian see the Constitution as either a temporary pseudo government for atheists until Jesus returns, a challenge to their faith, or a now misinterpreted mandate of biblical laws for what was once "God's chosen country."

How can you speak about the Bible and not speak about God? And I disagree with you about the point of the thread. Bill is suggesting that there is a conflict between the Bible and the Constitution. He did not frame the issue to ask whether the Constitution or the Bible is more useful in governing. The answer to that question is obvious, the Constitution. It is like this, if you buy a new computer the owner's manual is going to be a lot more useful than the Bible in terms of how to set up and operate it, but the two books do not conflict with each other. (Yes, I know that there is more likely to an overlap between the Bible and the Constitution, but the basic point holds, unless it can be shown how there is a conflict between the Bible and the Constitution.)



Well there is quite a lot of diversity of opinion amongst Christians, but I think most would have no trouble with Romans 13, at least in terms of most situations. We believe in following the laws.

Yes, I saw that. Which is why I found it so peculiar Bill when you introduced the thread - that you said it had its genesis in a discussion you were having with Arneoker --- when instead it was a discussion the three of us were having...

Innocent omission?

The accept your apology for the oversight...

And in your limited opinion the previous posts were off-topic --- what I was suggesting was that Lou Dobbs was not a credible commentator because he purported to be a Christian and a patriot --- and he was neither --- showing how his position on immigration challenged that credibility.

If a commentator is not credible --- then his statements cannot be so easily accepted --- and this could raise questions regarding his statement regarding Obama...

I know that, but what can I say? I disagree with them, and I think that I have a better grasp on what Jesus would have us do and think than they do. I could be wrong but that is what I think.



Well just as there have theories about how the body functions that have been proven wrong these people could be wrong. But then again we are speaking in terms of need. I understand Rla to be saying that we need the Constitution, but I don't understand him to be saying that the Constitution is somehow "a part of us". So I don't see how this particular distinction invalidates my analogy. Often you urgently need more than one thing, and trying to set up a choice between one and another is usually not a very useful exercise when that is the case.

That is what some Christians use to argue for a temporal application of God's spiritual directives.

But I have always challenged this interpretation.

I believe that while God tells us in the Bible how we should acquit ourselves on Earth.

I believe the Bible is really a prescription for the afterlife.

If you, as an indivdiual, comport yourself in such a manner you may receive eternal grace in Heaven with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I understand that some Christians are trying to create a more Christian world --- and that even the Pope has gone so far (I am speaking about Pope John Paull II) as to direct that the teachings of the Bible have a place in political life --- and that voters should inject the Bible into their decisionmaking on election day, but I truly do not believe that this was God's intention at all.

I can find no evidence that would suggest that God intended that people advance a certain form of government with certain precepts...

I can only find that he directed a certain manner of behavior for the individual and the community of his supporters...

Perhaps someone can enlighten me otherwise on this subject.

I agreed here mostly because of how I see individual rights superseding some other rights like the right of the unborn.

I would have chosen maybe 90% if it were there --- but I thought 100% was too high.

Of course, we are talking about what the Bible says, so Arne may be right - that the Bible does not specifically address the rights of the unborn or stem cell research.

I would agree with your comments which I have highlighted in bold...with the caveat that we are directed to follow the Ten Commandments and the do lay down a prescrioption for conduct toward others -- and not solely an outline for behavior between God and the individual.

Show me where I have implied that the Constitution is, "part of us." If the government has the authority to take money from individual persons for the benefit of the whole and has the authority
to kill individual persons for violating its laws, where does this authority come from? And where do
the Civil rights of individual persons come from. The old answer is that God gave government its
authority and also gave individual persons their rights. The new answer is that both come from and are guaranteed by a Social Contract called Constitution. The Declaration of Independence didn't
quite make it this far.

I think that the Bible has all kinds of statements with implications for public policy. The point is that does not contradict the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution describes our form and process of government, it does not prescribe what policy should be.

You attacked my analogy because lungs and the heart are part of the human organism, so I extrapolated from that to conclude that perhaps your logic was implying that something had to be a part of us to be "needed" by us. If that is not the case then how would these documents not being a part of us invalidate my analogy? An analogy that fails does not fail because it is in fact different from the reality that it purports to describe, all analogies have some differences with the reality in question. It fails because the difference makes the analogy inapplicable in terms of the point one is trying to make.



People have all kinds of answers and theories, and the new ones aren't necessarily better. And I don't know that the Founders, Deists (still believers in God or Providence) though many of them were, thought that they were writing a Constitution that would supplant the Supreme Being, I would wager they thought the document to aligned with the purposes of any Supreme Being, or in any event not posing a problem to such purposes. But that does not mean that the Constitution is only for believers, just as it is not only for nonbelievers. I think that it is for people of a great many different beliefs concerning God and religion, and that no one but the most zealously extremist has to check in their beliefs at the door when it comes to living under and defending the Constitution.

Excellent point.

As I suggested, you were likely right because I was getting into policy specifics which you accurately state the Bible steers away from. I was getting into the modern religious activism of the evangelical and Roman Catholic churches...which is distinct from the Bible itself...

I think this statement is problematic. Since the Constitution describes the structure and function of government, these processes do generate policy in the form of enabling legislation and clarifying Court cases and administrative regulations--all dependent upon the Constitution. Regarding the issue of Need, persons need to have input
in government operations and the government needs to have the support of the people. The role
of Religions in the social system are to inform the individual's input into government and in my opinion, to influence governments to operate in more humanitarian ways since this is the core of most religions. Except through individual persons, Religion has no direct relationship with government, except both religion and government have part-whole relations to the Social System.

Well I think that the Bible has more to say about policy than about form or process of government. And even about policy it is very general, it is hardly much of a treatise on either liberal or conservative political philosophy. I think it has implications for policy, while Christians can draw guidance from the Bible they need to be very careful in saying something like they have "Biblically based political views." I think that people with "Biblically based political views" can differ in all kinds of ways.

I don't think the Bible has anything to say to the government about government policy. It obviously
has some things to say to some individual persons about their opinions about government policy.
There is a difference.

Okay fine. It speaks to individuals, and they make their own intepretations. That is the only way that I would have it.

General policy --- yes, but I meant specifics...and I think its hard to find stem cell research mentioned in there...etc as I was suggesting with my earlier response...

Biblically based political views...

Well, I guess that is what many evangelists have and many Roman Catholics as well with

I just find it inappropriate to advance a policy that eliminates free will on a subject...

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to US Bishops

http://www.wf-f.org/Catholics_and_Politics.html

After their "ad limina" visits in May and June, several bishops reported having conversations with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the vexing problem of dissenting Catholic politicians. Some claimed that the CDF cautioned bishops against "politicizing" Communion with "sanctions" and "penalties".

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the CDF, wrote a memorandum for the American bishops, sent to Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the US Conference, and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who heads the bishops' Task Force to implement the CDF's November 2002 Doctrinal Note on the matter. (See Cdl. McCarrick's remarks below.) The memorandum was intended to give guidance on the issue for the US bishops' June 15 deliberations. Cardinal Ratzinger's letter was not made public at the time, but Cardinal McCarrick, reported that the matter was left in the hands of the bishops.

On July 3, 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum was published by L'Espresso, an Italian news weekly, on its English-language web site, "www.chiesa.com", along with a story by editor Sandro Magister (http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7055&eng=y)

Following is Cardinal Ratzinger's complete memorandum, written in English expressly for the bishops' conference of the United States, and which provides important context for the bishops' discussion and decisions.

-------------------------------------------

Cardinal Ratzinger's Memorandum
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum ,nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.] (Emphasis added)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDITOR"S NOTE: For a useful explanation of "formal" and "remote material cooperation", see Archbishop John Myer's June 1990 Pastoral Statement on this site.

This appears to be the common interpretation of many Protestants but not necessarilly Catholics.

I think that you would not have too much trouble finding Catholics who think that too. But obviously a lot of Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, do not think that way. For one thing this is rather subtle stuff, and a lot of people simply haven't thought it out.

No omission or apology. The debate I referred to was between me and Arne. You may have responded to the original question that lead to the debate on that thread, but your response was not relevant to the debate I referred to.

Even if it's for the sake of the afterlife, it's those directions of how to conduct ourselves in this mortal life on earth that often get easily translated to mean methods of governing.

I was about to agree with your premise, but I think it went a little bit too far "often get easily" I would delete easily --- because I do not believe that it is easy to make such a translation...

Indeed the Bible is a direction for present --- not future (after life) conduct...

But I do not think that such translations are easily made...sometimes the gymnastics that is done to make the connections between the Bible and government policy are quite cumbersome...

The main point I was making is that the Bible speaks to individual salvation and not community or national salvation where as, as Arne has pointed out -- the Constitution is a prescription for the formation of government and the preservation of individual rights which the government may not interfere with...

If the question is can the Bible be used against the Constitution then I think that the obvious answer is yes.

But if the question is must the Bible be used against the Constitution then I think that the answer is no.

I think that one can be a serious Christian, not have to check their religion when they leave either the home or church door and go into the outside world, with all of its politics, hold their head up high, and be entitled not to be suspected of being a less than stalwart upholder of this country's democratic and republican principles and institutions. I would make this defense of those devoted to just about any other religion, I am certainly going to make this defense of those devoted to my own religion.

No one here has to worry what I mean when I fly the flag.

Well, as I illustrated -- the debate was started in reference to a question I raised regarding Lou Dobbs --- and the debate was continued between you, Arne and I as I illustrated with your responses to my posts on the topic as well...and Arne's responses to your posts directed toward me...

If you want to continue to deny those facts, fine.

But just realize its another instance of denial on your part.