Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

clark · 2004-10-20 11:12:43

If yes, prison is just as unjust and abhorrent as execution. In both cases you're taking a life in a sense. A truly vile crime.

Locking up a criminal is to prevent the neccessity of putting them down. It is a neccessity to protect the rights and life of society. You're being silly, and I'm not going to indulge you.

For all I care, lock em up till the end of time. If they think it so vile, let them take their own life. As long as I'm not part of the crime, I don't have a problem with it.

It's wrong to kill, it's not wrong to do what is neccessary to protect yourself. Dance around this all you want, but that's the difference. If we have to kill someone because they won't go peacefully, fine. Neccessity dictates we put the bugger down. A man in chains though, after he is improisoned, pulled from the prison just to die? That's murder, plain and simple.

To use your silly extremist analogy, I am justified in locking someone up for 30 years in my basement if that is my only recourse to defend myself from them. Because it is highly unlikely that such occasion will ever happen to me, where my only choice is to lock someone up in a basement for 30 years, it's wrong.

I can grant you the point that life in prison, or any amount of time in prison is a slow death penalty. Yes, we're just waiting it out. But there is a difference in taking a hand in the murder of another human being when we don't have to do it.

We have an obligation to defend ourselves, but that obligation only allows us to use as much force and action as is neccessary to defend ourselves. Which is why we can shoot an robber in our home, but can't run after him for forty miles and shoot him in the back, in the middle of the street.

You want to castrate, or tattoo the bastards, fine, we can discuss the merits of each. Forms of punishment vary, and I willingly admit that it's all the freaking same. Murder though is wrong. Killing when there is no neccessity for it is just wrong.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 12:05:38

Forms of punishment vary, and I willingly admit that it's all the freaking same. Murder though is wrong. Killing when there is no neccessity for it is just wrong.

According to your view of morality, and that's the point. The fact that we've been arguing this all day and neither can come up with anything more than hypothetical examples, logic traps and forceful opinions is a testament to the reality that all the distinctions we throw back and forth come from us. We decide that killing is wrong except in self defense, we decide where to draw that line. To brush against the original topic of this thread, it's an almost religious conviction, you're certain of the rightness of your position because it's true, it just is. You want to keep people in prison just to avoid killing them, I'd rather just get on with it. The end result is essentially the same.

clark · 2004-10-20 12:33:42

Extrapolation of a logical line of reasoning.

Is it acceptable to kill. Yes or No?

If yes, is it acceptable to kill in all instances? Yes or No.

If no, what are the criteria for instances where killing is acceptable? When there is no other recource.

It is acceptable to kill under any circumstances when there is an alternative recourse? Yes or no.

If yes, under what circumstances is it acceptable to kill, even when an alternative recourse is available?

Your answer, when a common held law is violated.

You can choose any point upon the tree to define the line. I am making this as simple as possible.

We have a fundamental point of disagreement because you accept murder as being justifiable without neccessity.

Maybe it is faith then. Maybe murder without neccessity is acceptable. Animals will kill without neccessity. Nature has no values to speak of.

The realization that we may act and the consquences of our actions imbues humanity with a soul, be it by chance, or by god, we understand what it means to live. That realization should create the framework by which we can understand that killing without the need is not something we should do. To do otherwise is to ignore what we have become.

Morris · 2004-10-28 14:31:56

The natural right of self defense is the only real right we have, when all the constructs of society are stripped away we are left with that, a natural "right" to fight those who would harm us.

But Cobra, I thought you didn't believe in natural rights <g><wink>.

Morris · 2004-10-28 14:51:02

Forms of punishment vary, and I willingly admit that it's all the freaking same. Murder though is wrong. Killing when there is no neccessity for it is just wrong.
According to your view of morality, and that's the point. The fact that we've been arguing this all day and neither can come up with anything more than hypothetical examples, logic traps and forceful opinions is a testament to the reality that all the distinctions we throw back and forth come from us. We decide that killing is wrong except in self defense, we decide where to draw that line. To brush against the original topic of this thread, it's an almost religious conviction, you're certain of the rightness of your position because it's true, it just is. You want to keep people in prison just to avoid killing them, I'd rather just get on with it. The end result is essentially the same.

If only it were. It is much more expensive to imprison the truly dangerous ones and, periodically, they get released on procedural grounds. I certainly agree with Clark that it is important NOT to use the death penalty with those about whom there is any significant (vs. reasonable) doubt. The whole concept of doubt should be upgraded on the basis of modern science.

However, there are a substantial number of people, e.g. some serial killers, where their crimes are substantiated by DNA evidence, confession (where the details of the confessions are consistent with known but unpublished features of the crime) where there is no significant doubt. In those cases, the death penalty should be imposed as a symbol both of the profound violation of the rights of the victims and of the principle of the enforcement of comparable consequences for deadly crimes. We frequently hear arguments about the sanctity of life used against the concept of capital punishment but rarely about the sanctity of the lives of the victims of these serials killers. To permit these people to live makes an evolutionary statement that killing whoever is foolish enough to make themselves vulnerable to such murders is a social good and that the life of their murderer (or that of any aggressor) is more valuable than the lives of their victims.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-28 18:28:22

But Cobra, I thought you didn't believe in natural rights <g><wink>.

Just the one that actually exists in nature.

A.J.Armitage · 2004-10-29 12:40:03

If the power of the state, under certain circumstances, to kill a person means that we have no rights, why doesn't the same logic apply to the power to put people in cages? It's kind of hard to pursue happiness while imprisoned, at least as most people understand happiness.

But anyway, for Morris --

1) Does this oath apply to secular ideologies, or not? After all, more people have been killed in the name of the Workers' Paradise than in the name of Jesus, in spite of Christians having a huge head start.

2) If not, how can you justify requiring religious people to falsely accuse themselves by implication of being uniquely dangerous, to the point of requiring special laws and oaths and penalties before they can be permitted to live?

3) If so, how do you deal with the fact that ANY state must have an account of why it can legitimately use force to imprison or execute or otherwise punish offenders and to collect taxes, and that this is the definition of an ideology -- thus consistuting a secular (or religious) ideology which justifies violence against "unbelievers"? And it doesn't help to suggest the state could merely require adherence to the laws and payment of taxes without adhering to any particular justification for this, because the same logic could justify a church demanding tithes from all while not requiring anyone to confess the Creed.

4) What about denominations that forbid oaths?

5) And what about Orthodox Jews who say that when the Messiah comes they will execute idolaters, or Reconstructionist Postmillenialists who say that when the Millenium starts most of humanity will be regenerated, and then they will execute idolaters? They're not an immediate threat to you (or any kind of threat at all unless they're right -- and if they're right, the thing to do is join them), yet you seem to think you have a right to go past their noses into their mouths and their very minds. Why? Do you own them? Would you like to?

6) What is the exact wording if this oath?

ERRORIST · 2004-10-31 21:29:25

GENSIS 2.0
"THUS THE HEAVANS AND THE EARTH WERE FINISHED AND ALL THE HOST OF THEM". This explains it all to me. life is teaming out there. Space the final fronteir.

clark · 2004-11-01 08:06:45

Morris, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I disagree with you yet on still two points though, one being the establishment of the death penalty as a symbol- a symbol of what? That human life is nothing more than a value determined by the group and suffered so long as a majority deem it worthwhile? I find it rather odd that you might even argue that state sanctioned murder could act as a symbol. You point out psychopaths as obvious recipients of such punishments, but wouldn't their generally debilitated mental state preclude any possibility of them understanding the significance of the symbolism we would make of the death penalty? Which of course leads one to assume that the symbolism is held by those who might understand it, i.e., the general public at large.

Murder as a great pat on the back? Don't we feel superior now. Violation of the victims rights happens for all manner of crimes, and is the basis of the, "eye for an eye" system of justice. Is this really justice? If I maim you, should I be maimed? If I cheat, should i be cheated?

Simple justice for simple emotions. There is no reason to it other than the satisfaction of innate animal lust.

What separates us from the beasts is the basic understanding that our actions have consequences, and we may understand what the consequences are. Eye for an eye justice is little more than jungle law.

As for the second point, I disagree that allowing such individuals to live, in a situation where they may not threaten any others, is a poor evolutionary statement. If it were the case, wouldn't we be better off killing their progeny?

It is a profound evolutionary statement for a species to not kill their own as an act of retribution when none is warranted. As a group we have a right to use as much force as is necessary to protect ourselves. That is why this whole argument about jailing being similar is a red herring. We have a right to protect ourselves, but that right only extends to the immediacy of the situation.

A man in chains does not endanger the public trust. You argue for action when none is warranted on the premise to do otherwise is to somehow condone the behavior. It's simply backwards.

The life of all is of the same worth, regardless of sin. The devaluation of another is the devaluation of self. I arrive at this rather Christian stance not from religion, but from a belief that all things lack any inherent value. All things are equal.

I do not condone the murder of another by one persons doing anymore than I would condone the murder of another by a group of people, all without necessity. The action itself is the same.

By allowing the death penalty we open the door for this punishment to be extrapolated to all manners of crimes. We invite debate on when and wherefore it is permissible to kill for this or that crime. Politics? Religion? Thoughts? Love? All have been subjected to the punishment of death by the state at one time or another (and still in some parts). Subjectively, if you can agree the need for the death penalty, you can't rightly complain when others deem such and such a crime as a punishable offence merited with death.

It's plain as day that this is wrong. Just as stoning a women for adultery is wrong. Just as terrorists beheading civilians is wrong. Just as any murder of another where there is no necessity to do so is wrong.

You all can see it because I know when you read the news, see the faces, think of those struck down for no good reason, you understand. But it's different? So say they who carry out these crimes that we condemn. But our actions are exactly the same- our hearts mimic one another.

BWhite · 2004-11-01 10:08:32

GENSIS 2.0
"THUS THE HEAVANS AND THE EARTH WERE FINISHED AND ALL THE HOST OF THEM". This explains it all to me. life is teaming out there. Space the final fronteir.

Lets go find our cousins!

And tie Cobra Commander up before he kills all those cute fuzzy aliens. :;):

Just ribbing you. . .

BWhite · 2004-11-01 10:12:11

Capital punishment?

Always morally wrong. Always.

Sometimes necessary due to a society's failure to plan ahead sufficiently to either educate its people to avoid egregious criminality or to take other steps to assure the safety of its citizens through non-lethal means.

To advocate capital punishment as policy is a powerful confession of one's own weakness.

= = =

To revel in or relish the death of any criminal (no matter how heinous his crimes) is itself one epitome of evil.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-01 11:18:45

To advocate capital punishment as policy is a powerful confession of one's own weakness.

No, it's merely a confession of our unwillingness to burden ourselves with more expensive and troublesome solutions. If you catch a roach in your kitchen do you isolate it and lock it up for the duration of its natural life, or do you simply kill it and move on?

To revel in or relish the death of any criminal (no matter how heinous his crimes) is itself one epitome of evil.

To revel in it, yes. But to be indifferent to the death of the criminal is quite another matter. Trash disposal, nothing more profound than that.

clark · 2004-11-01 11:27:00

first you make the "other" less than human. then it becomes infintely easier to do whatever you wish with them.

Japanese Americans were not considered Americans in WW2- they were Japanese who might be enemies in our midst. Black slaves were not men, but chattel prior to 1865. Women, inferior due to their physical capabilities for time immeroial. And on and on and on.

Adulter's are less than human, much like a roach, so why not stone them? Western heathens are less than human, so why not behead them? Petty theives, criminals and due no basic human respect, so why not off with their hands or their heads?

Who are we to complain on the yard stick used to measure crime if we all agree on the final count? It's hypocrisy to assume that because you condem in one case, but not in another, you are somehow morally superior, or more enlightened. You're not, and your ways are more or less leniant in compairson to others- which is nothing to be proud of.

BWhite · 2004-11-01 11:33:08

To advocate capital punishment as policy is a powerful confession of one's own weakness.
No, it's merely a confession of our unwillingness to burden ourselves with more expensive and troublesome solutions. If you catch a roach in your kitchen do you isolate it and lock it up for the duration of its natural life, or do you simply kill it and move on?

I recall a sci-fi short story titled "The Exterminator" that seems rather spot on here. Do I google for the link?

BWhite · 2004-11-01 11:37:06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Burroughs]WIlliam S. Burroughs? clark, am I right?

= = =

Edit. Nope, this is not the story I was thinking of.

clark · 2004-11-01 11:51:04

Perhaps Kafka?

The Metamorphosis

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-01 11:58:06

first you make the "other" less than human. then it becomes infintely easier to do whatever you wish with them.

It's quite easy enough without diminishing their humanity. Human beings, people just like you or I in nearly every measurable sense exercise their free will to commit horrendous acts all the time. Human garbage, yes, but human nonetheless. It doesn't make them any more valuable or worthy of existence.

Who are we to complain on the yard stick used to measure crime if we all agree on the final count? It's hypocrisy to assume that because you condem in one case, but not in another, you are somehow morally superior, or more enlightened.

I make no such claim. Morality is relative, granted. Every society erects its own edifice of what it considers right and wrong. I don't pretend that our ways are inherently "better" in some quantifiable universal sense, but I judge that they are better, not because we try not to kill but the reasons why we do so. Killing in self defense is acceptable, we agree. Killing because you're bored is wrong, we agree. It's that middle ground where we all have our differences. We agree that killing is generally not acceptable except under a list of circumstances. I merely have a longer list.

You draw the line at "necessity", it's wrong to kill if there's another way, any other way. I maintain that to kill a person because they have committed a heinous crime of their own free will is acceptable even if not strictly necessary. Slippery slope? Certainly. There are extreme pacifists who could argue the same of your "self defense" position. What constitutes "self defense" is itself open to debate. Trying to draw clear lines here is an exercise in futility.

C M Edwards · 2004-11-01 16:03:14

To revel in or relish the death of any criminal (no matter how heinous his crimes) is itself one epitome of evil.
To revel in it, yes. But to be indifferent to the death of the criminal is quite another matter. Trash disposal, nothing more profound than that.

Unfortunately, these are socially competing impulses. Society doesn't want people to think of killing other people as merely trash disposal. Society also doesn't want criminals, to the point where it will sanction killing to prevent them. The interplay of the two leads to much hair splitting.

I always try to remember: Executions, like funerals, are meant for the living. It's a realization that cuts through a lot of the extraneous crap surrounding this issue.

Morris · 2004-11-10 14:39:01

Capital punishment?
Always morally wrong. Always.

I disagree. In appropriate cases, I argue that it is morally wrong NOT to use capital punishment. As I pointed out in a previous post which I don't have time to go back to at the moment on this library computer, NOT having capital punishment for serial killers who are certainly guilty is a horrible moral contradiction from an evolutionary perspective as the human rights of the killer are placed above those of the victims. This CAN'T be right in any theory of morality above the level of social Darwinism. Certainly is fails both Jesus' and Kant's reciprocity tests.

Sometimes necessary due to a society's failure to plan ahead sufficiently to either educate its people to avoid egregious criminality or to take other steps to assure the safety of its citizens through non-lethal means.
To advocate capital punishment as policy is a powerful confession of one's own weakness.

You are right. It is a confession of our intrinsic "weakness", if "weakness" it be. We simply DO NOT KNOW HOW TO EDUCATE ALL PEOPLE AGAINST CRIMINALITY. This is one example of the basic flaw in the "liberal" perspective. Liberal descriptions of social problems are often very accurate and should be regarded with careful attention. Liberal proposals for solutions to the problems are almost always either totally ineffective or have, at best, limited effectiveness. This is because the liberal believes in social cause and effect far beyond the level to which is really applies. We respond to many social influences, both relatively overt and relatively subtle. However, due to the fact that humans possess free will the liberal assumption of social causation (thus allowing us to educate all people against criminality, for example) is fundamentally flawed. There is a huge difference between social influence and social causation.

We do not have, and in my opinion should not want, the ability to control others behavior (though we may very justifiably want to hone our persuasive skills to the very highest level).

To revel in or relish the death of any criminal (no matter how heinous his crimes) is itself one epitome of evil.

True, but what does that have to do with the administration of justice?

P.S. For those who might be interested, my mother has been discharged from the hospital and may be allowed to put full weight on her hip after her X-rays a week from Friday. In the meantime I am logging on from a library computer with a maximum of 30 minutes use time if anyone is waiting. Thus I can't respond to those issues requiring more detail.

Morris · 2004-11-10 14:43:57

Trash disposal, nothing more profound than that.

I prefer to refer to it as "human toxic waste" applied very carefully to those few humans who deserve it.

clark · 2004-11-10 14:54:18

Morris, hope your mom feels better soon.

Certainly is fails both Jesus' and Kant's reciprocity tests.

Hay-zeus? Isn't he that guy who preached about love and tolerance? Was he before or after those tablets from god?

If we're going to build a foundation on evolutionary theory here, shouldn't we address the children of those who commit murder?

We simply DO NOT KNOW HOW TO EDUCATE ALL PEOPLE AGAINST CRIMINALITY.

Okay, but the question remains, why do we need to kill a person who no longer poses an immediate threat to society?

We do not have, and in my opinion should not want, the ability to control others behavior (though we may very justifiably want to hone our persuasive skills to the very highest level).

The death penalty is used as a means to "control" behavior- permanently. Look, no penalty is going to deter a person from a commiting a crime they are intent on commiting. The evaluation is always based on the ability to get away with the crime, not with the punishment associated with the crime.

It's just about true for all crime and for all people who commit any kind of crime- be it speeding, jay-walking, cheating on their spouse, incest, rape, not paying taxes, or murder.

We can kill the whole lot, but it debases our own humanity.

If you accept the death penalty for a crime, then you accept the death penalty for all crimes. It's just a subjective test to determine when and where it is culturaly acceptable.

You end up providing the exscuses by which real monsters kill women for adultery. or beheading civilians. Or flying planes into towers.

If I accept that the death penalty is legitiamte, than I am forced to accept the actions of terroists as acceptable since they justify their actions by the very basis of your argument. Don't you see that Morris?

PeterJ · 2004-11-10 20:34:28

ive been meaning to look at this topic more closely but i havent

oh yeah and sorry for the spelling but for some reason i just dont care today. (usually i spell perfectly)

basically your debating capital punishement, and religion:

well i believe that capital punishment is essential for particularly violent crimes where the criminal is found to be guilty without a doubt and there is no chance of rehabilitation (or the crime is so bad i.e. genocide he should die). But for all other crimes i beleve alternate measures are required as everyone should get a chance to change.

And religion:

Basically im atheist and i would love mars to be only inhabitated by intelligent atheists and it could be a kind of new perfect race. But hey that justs a stupid dream. I have NO problem with religon which is practiced in private and only affects YOU and you alone. But the moment when a relgious person tries to use their beliefs in politics or start a mass-conversion crusade it has to stop period. The problem with open religion can be seen on earth: in the bloody family first party (yes im austrlian) getting a seat in the senate and pushing through all kinds of discriminatory policies and other policices which are holding back our country through their alliance wiht the liberals. :realllymad: not to mention the christian zealot george bush as his Holy Jihad against hte middle east but thats a different argument, and the brutal regiemes in the middle east, INCLUDING ISRAEL, but htat also is another argument.

neway:

I believe simply when we go to mars we should try to make all the problems of earth not be transported to mars. kinda like a fresh start if you know hwat i mean. Mars is our chance to get it right. But realistically the first colonies will start like this but as the population grows it will inevitably turn into another earth.

oh i almost forgot: for those who participated in the other debate about, gun ownership and military strenght you would notice i originally said guns should be outlawed and i then backpeddled and changed my opinion i wish to apologise for the confusion but i confused between two different times on mars:

i believe when mars just starts out as a few colonies guns and weapons should be banned as they are not needed to defend against anyone and i maintain guns cause problems not fix them. But eventually when mars becomes inevitably like earth and there is a significant danger to your life i believe gunownership and simliar laws will come inevitably come up.

anyway:

Mars: a fresh start!

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-11 07:54:33

i believe when mars just starts out as a few colonies guns and weapons should be banned as they are not needed to defend against anyone and i maintain guns cause problems not fix them. But eventually when mars becomes inevitably like earth and there is a significant danger to your life i believe gunownership and simliar laws will come inevitably come up.

I see where you're coming from here, but there's a problem: This argument is essentially saying "we can't build an unarmed society, but we'll try to anyway." It acknowledges basic realities then refuses to conform to them, it's rather odd.

Perhaps the best approach is to permit weapons but deal swiftly with any crime that occurs while carefully selecting the colonists. The big "secret" of letting people carry guns is that most people don't. Most people don't want to carry an uncomfortable piece of metal around all day. It's the uncertainty in the mind of criminals that really matters, not everyone actually being armed. One mugger shot by his intended victim with state sanction is worth a hundred police and a thousand armed citizens.

RobS · 2004-11-11 22:42:37

The notion that people on Mars should ever have guns strikes me as absolutely nuts. For what;deer hunting? Please, ban the things! Otherwise violence will keep escalating; criminals will get handguns, so they will be legalized, so criminals will get semiautomatic weapons, then automatic weapons. . . it used to be, British policemen weren't even armed! Why not aim for a world without things THAT ARE ONLY USEFUL FOR KILLING PEOPLE. After all, there won't be any hunting, and in a modern world they are useless for a militia. Statistically, guns for self defense cause more accidents and accidental deaths than prevent crimes.

And hey, I was raised on a farm with a few shotguns, a deer rifle, and at least one pistol in my father's possession. It's not like I don't know what they are.

-- RobS

BWhite · 2004-11-11 22:56:02

Capital punishment?
Always morally wrong. Always.
I disagree. In appropriate cases, I argue that it is morally wrong NOT to use capital punishment. As I pointed out in a previous post which I don't have time to go back to at the moment on this library computer, NOT having capital punishment for serial killers who are certainly guilty is a horrible moral contradiction from an evolutionary perspective as the human rights of the killer are placed above those of the victims. This CAN'T be right in any theory of morality above the level of social Darwinism. Certainly is fails both Jesus' and Kant's reciprocity tests.
Sometimes necessary due to a society's failure to plan ahead sufficiently to either educate its people to avoid egregious criminality or to take other steps to assure the safety of its citizens through non-lethal means.
To advocate capital punishment as policy is a powerful confession of one's own weakness.
You are right. It is a confession of our intrinsic "weakness", if "weakness" it be. We simply DO NOT KNOW HOW TO EDUCATE ALL PEOPLE AGAINST CRIMINALITY. This is one example of the basic flaw in the "liberal" perspective. Liberal descriptions of social problems are often very accurate and should be regarded with careful attention. Liberal proposals for solutions to the problems are almost always either totally ineffective or have, at best, limited effectiveness. This is because the liberal believes in social cause and effect far beyond the level to which is really applies. We respond to many social influences, both relatively overt and relatively subtle. However, due to the fact that humans possess free will the liberal assumption of social causation (thus allowing us to educate all people against criminality, for example) is fundamentally flawed. There is a huge difference between social influence and social causation.
We do not have, and in my opinion should not want, the ability to control others behavior (though we may very justifiably want to hone our persuasive skills to the very highest level).
To revel in or relish the death of any criminal (no matter how heinous his crimes) is itself one epitome of evil.
True, but what does that have to do with the administration of justice?
P.S. For those who might be interested, my mother has been discharged from the hospital and may be allowed to put full weight on her hip after her X-rays a week from Friday. In the meantime I am logging on from a library computer with a maximum of 30 minutes use time if anyone is waiting. Thus I can't respond to those issues requiring more detail.

Education and/or prevention of crimes through non-lethal means.

I do not oppose capital punishment when there is no other choice. However, to box ourselves into circumstances where there is no other choice is morally wrong.

Why do people seek to insist that they always have a morally just option open to them? There are times when an execution is worse than no execution - - but that doesn't make execution right, it merely makes it the lesser of evils.

We are not permitted to judge when or whether another human being forfeits their standing are a human being. We are permitted to take necessary actions when there is no other choice but then only moral cowards refuse to openly face that they have indeed acted immorally.

To impose capital punishment is ALWAYS evil. Rarely, it is less evil that not imposing capital punishment.

= = =

PS - - My religious faith requires me to accept that I am my brother's keeper and while I cannot save all of my siblings, I am not permitted to abandon hope for any of them. Ever.

= = =

PPS - - People do "deserve" to be executed. I am less than confident of our ability to discern those cases with rationality and impartiality, but that is beside the point.

However, to kill someone who is safely locked away lessens MY humanity whether or not they deserve it.

Question - - would you have any qualms about your child marrying an exeuctioner? That the hands which killed a man at 12:01 a.m. were two hours later caressing your grandchild?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-10-20 11:12:43

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#52 2004-10-20 12:05:38

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#53 2004-10-20 12:33:42

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#54 2004-10-28 14:31:56

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#55 2004-10-28 14:51:02

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#56 2004-10-28 18:28:22

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#57 2004-10-29 12:40:03

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#58 2004-10-31 21:29:25

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#59 2004-11-01 08:06:45

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#60 2004-11-01 10:08:32

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#61 2004-11-01 10:12:11

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#62 2004-11-01 11:18:45

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#63 2004-11-01 11:27:00

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#64 2004-11-01 11:33:08

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#65 2004-11-01 11:37:06

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#66 2004-11-01 11:51:04

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#67 2004-11-01 11:58:06

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#68 2004-11-01 16:03:14

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#69 2004-11-10 14:39:01

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#70 2004-11-10 14:43:57

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#71 2004-11-10 14:54:18

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#72 2004-11-10 20:34:28

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#73 2004-11-11 07:54:33

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#74 2004-11-11 22:42:37

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#75 2004-11-11 22:56:02

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

Board footer