Difference between revisions of "Talk:Theocracy"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Because some poor innocent (or possibly the FBI) might think that this site agitates for a United States of God's America. All this talk of the right to bear arms on userpages.....the game's afoot! --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT) | Because some poor innocent (or possibly the FBI) might think that this site agitates for a United States of God's America. All this talk of the right to bear arms on userpages.....the game's afoot! --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Well, appearing in this article, right next to Manu Smriti and Sharia Law isn't exactly promoting Biblical Law (on the contrary), but I don't see why it would be inappropriate given that they are similar. | ||
| + | Unless someone would want to censor anything that doesn't promote the Bible... | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]] | ||
Revision as of 23:50, May 11, 2007
Why do certain editors have a problem with the word Biblical law?
The first time I put it in next to Sharia (there were now 2 examples of religious law) it was reverted and I thought it was because the editor in question believed it would make that section to lengthy, making it less clear.
Then I added Manu Smriti and put Biblical Law back in (there were now 3 examples of religious law), but only Biblical was removed afterwards, why?
Because some poor innocent (or possibly the FBI) might think that this site agitates for a United States of God's America. All this talk of the right to bear arms on userpages.....the game's afoot! --Robledo 19:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, appearing in this article, right next to Manu Smriti and Sharia Law isn't exactly promoting Biblical Law (on the contrary), but I don't see why it would be inappropriate given that they are similar. Unless someone would want to censor anything that doesn't promote the Bible...