Gosh, I sure hope they were done using those buildings...

Thanks. It's a logo I had custom designed for my business. I use it for lots of stuff.

A side note on the Golden Rule you mentioned: It has its origins in Matthew 7:12 which refers back to the 6th through the 10th commandments given by Moses in the Pentateuch. The Golden Rule is merely a summary of the way we ought to interact with fellow man. (It does not address how we ought to act within our own minds or with our Creator.) Rather than 'some' morals deriving from the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule is derived from 'some' morals.

You're correct that Marijuana use doesn't directly injure anyone else (though everything indirectly affects others around us). Just like smoking cigarettes or over-eating. Yet, Marijuana use harms the user far less than either of those two. But one truly has to understand what the very purpose of his existence is in order to understand that Marijuana use is contrary to those purposes.

The big problem I have with this whole "this should be illegal, this shouldn't be illegal" stuff is that I do not see a disparity between the moral code and legal/lawful code. If something can be demonstrated to be immoral using Foundational Law, it is irrelevant if the current governmental powers recognize it as such, in determining it's immorality. The question then is, in structuring our governments to abide by and recognize Foundational Law, should those governments have corporeal punishments for violations of that Law. Each law is different, and carries different punishments. For the case of Marijuana use, I would argue that there is no punishment at all that can be carried out by what most people call the US GOVERNMENT that would be fitting to the 'crime' so committed. That is to say, in common parlance, MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGALIZED. And I think that NO ONE should smoke it! If (and when) they do, they have their own reward and punishment in the same instant and they will be ostracized by their own families to the extent of their misbehavior.

I think cigarettes are just fine. Crudely speaking, they kill those stupid enough to use them. The crime isn't in the cigarette. The crime is in the heart and mind of the user. Just as are ALL crimes. Controlling materials is not going to change the heart and minds of men. That requires spiritual powers. To answer you succinctly: CIGARETTES SHOULD NOT BE MADE ILLEGAL.

Once again, drugs ARE morally wrong, but that does not mean the US GOVERNMENT should carry out the punishments for the violations. The US GOVERNMENT and it's subsidiary STATES are HORRIBLE at correcting the mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and moral errors in the hearts and minds of men. Last time I checked, the US GOVERNMENT doesn't even try.

In reply to this comment by brain:
The arguments in the video actually do make sense when you keep in mind what you're talking about. Of course the same arguments don't make any sense for theft. There is an obvious reason for this: The logic of morals. Pretty much all morals come from the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Theft causes harm to the person being stolen from. People don't want to be stolen from. Therefore, people shouldn't steal from other people.

Marijuana obviously doesn't affect other people at all. Marijuana is not in the same category as theft. Marijuana is in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs such as LSD and ecstasy. Keep it in the same category and the arguments make sense.

Do you think the taxation of cigarettes has failed? Cigarettes are extremely dangerous compared to marijuana. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million people world wide every year. Do you think we should make it illegal?

Also, keep in mind, it's big business either way you look at it. Either the government makes money, or organized crime makes money. Every single gang in the world stays in business by selling illegal substances. Also, Mexico is currently calling in their army to deal with the problem of drug cartels between the Mexico-US border.

Perhaps a lifetime of anti-drug propaganda has made it difficult for you to tell the difference between drugs and something that is actually morally wrong. It's OK.

P.S. I don't smoke weed. I actually hate it.

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!

I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.

Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.

Poolcleaner,

In common usage, the accusation of "quoting out of context" contains the implication that the phrase as quoted caries a significantly different meaning than that held in the larger portion of the work from which it was taken. The quotes you provided do not demonstrate this disparity. The truncated parts do not substantially effect the fact that Jefferson was very much a follower of Jesus Christ and his doctrines.

It is, of course, ridiculous to claim that one could claim to believe in God without believing in the Supernatural. He (God) is the singular greatest person whose existence defines the term Supernatural.

One must of course recognize the fundamental need for a Supernatural Principal Instigator if that person is to discuss the philosophy and doctrines decreed by that Instigator. Every sequential thought concerning this God need not be, and indeed, cannot be severed from mans ratiocination.

All too often this is the nature of the straw man proffered by those who would disparage the whole of the Bible. They see an act of faith in the recognition of a supreme God, and insist that every thought thereafter must also be of the same nature. While many in so called Christendom may have abandoned their minds long ago in their pursuit of Spiritualism, it is not logically necessary to do so. Rather, I would argue the Bible contains admonitions against such abandonment.

I would disagree with Jefferson on several points concerning his theology, but for the purposes of our conversation, the points upon which I do agree are of greater import. To wit: "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."

It is very important to question everything, but a question is worthless without the right answer.

>> ^poolcleaner:
Sniper,
The Wall Builders site, like most Christian biased sites (and books) on the founding fathers take a lot of quotes out of context, superimposing their beliefs of God and Jesus onto others they wish were just like them. I've had this conversation a number of times, pointing to the fact that while the builders mention Jesus and God and Christianity, the emphasis is almost always on the philosophy, minus the supernatural. The founding fathers as a collective were very much deists and pantheists. Their ideas on religion are more comparable to the "God" of Einstein. shrug Read between the lines, man.
---
Some convenient editting:
Wall Builders quoting of Jefferson: "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others."
His actual quote: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."
Wall Builders again quoting Jefferson: "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
Actual quote: "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw."
---
Quoting out of context seems to be the bread and butter of the current America. Question everything.
In search of truth and not justification for my beliefs,
~Pool

The alleged contradictions are varied and diverse in their nature. It would be a more efficient use of our keyboards to discuss the alleged contradictions with specific particularity.

I am not arguing that the old testament God is any different than the new testament God.

Though I gave a response, I am not certain your comment was intended to elicit one. If it was, please draft future comments in the form of a question.