fakeitormakeit2

Agreed. i recall arguing with romy once before and she claimed they don't get much from us. If that is so then they should do fine without us. I remember that covnversation. I didn't say Israel didn't get much from the US, I said the US never physically helped through wars. The USA's support for Israel IS important. I don't remember the exact wording. I kinda understand your guy's situation, you have to suspect everybody, and obviously hindsight is 20/20 but it seems like you go about everything the worst possible way. Normally when you take over land that doesn't belong to you and you piss off a very brotherly culture with a hotheaded tendency you're going to meet trouble when you plant your officials amongst their activists. There isn't really a good way to handle this situation. Quite frankly if I commanding the IDF I would have blown all the ships out of the water because of the "need to defend" [or rather the need to suppress starving conquered people, which ever you like better]. Edit: And please, I trust a Comedy Central skit more than an Israeli Military report, I had to write a paper on my choosing. Three primary documents I used, The Clark Clifford Report, a New York Times Article 1967 and the Yerushalmi Report 1982 made it quite clear of Israel's deception. The Clifford Report was completely plausible, the New York Times article stated they asked the ship to ID themselves and they said ID yourselves first and IDF suspected them of being an Egyptian ship because of the response because an Egyptian ship said that 13yrs ago, regardless that they were flagging an American flag, traveling 5knots [israel claims 30 which exceeded its capacity] and had USS Liberty written in English on the side [as opposed to Arabic]. Then the Yerushalmi Report claimed it had no flags flying, it was traveling 30 knots [capacity 18knots] and I forget the primary reason but it contradicted their first reasoning. The point is, Israeli military reports are not a credible source regardless of being issued by a government.

I divided my total time by the span of time I've played (~5.5yrs) and it came out to about 40min a day. Pretty accurate I don't play much and I have periods were I don't play for like a week or a few weeks.

Um. Huh? You first brought up your church in post #10 in response to a comment about the pedophilia scandal, saying "Marriage status is only a problem for bishops, as I am part of an Eastern Catholic Church rite and our priests are allowed to marry..." etc. You are incredibly obstinate and infuriating. I brought up the Eastern Church as a validation of clerical marriages being ok. That's it. You're so annoying you somehow say I was applying it to the scandal which I clearly wasn't. I was responding directly to the clerical marriage comment with the Law of the Church by giving an example of the Eastern Churches as all added churches are Eastern rite so any additions would follow the Law of Eastern Church in terms of addition. Again, I'm speaking solely on the permitting of marriage in regards to priests. Must I write it again i was only responding to the part were Serephurus said "If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church wouldn't recognize the status of Anglican bishops and priests. That's a major turnoff, even for the conservatives. Part of our diocese took up the Pope's offer, but our bishop held steadfast and stayed loyal to the Anglican Communion. However, I think that if the Pope changes the Roman church's stance on clerical marriage and offers to recognize our bishops, then the Anglican Communion would not exist any longer. Anglicans are already very similar to the Catholic church as it is." Oh and I would like to see a study that says most people who go to a psychologist are adult. You can't make claims like that without a source. And to a_local_guy, I would have to say to a good degree you are correct, it is hard to register something like this based from profession especially since one can get away with child abuse for years and even until they die and to their grave.

I have a feeling that when people mention reticence to be associated with the Catholic Church due to pedophilia scandals, they are referring to the RC church proper, not to the church you are a member of. So bringing that up in reference to those scandals is really a red herring. It has nothing to do with the pedophilia allegations... He and I were strictly speaking in regards of clerical marriage and the legitimacy of ordination, you are completely off as it has nothing to do with the scandal. Oh and by the way, the Cannon of the Church is RC proper... I said "That was actually pertinent to our discussion as Serephurus said the Catholic Church would not recognizing the legitimacy of the Anglican priests and bishops", tell me in there where there is anything about scandal. You claim to be intelligent enough to see I didn't source something when I did use a legitimate source based on research below, but apparently you aren't intelligent enough to read what I was writing in regards to, twice. And here's your source: http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm Backed by scientific research that which can be found on the bottom and don't complain about it saying catholic because the Catholics are probably the only group who would defend themselves by piecing together a report based on research rather than hateful bashing.

I think that's great, but realize that while the Eastern Catholic Church is obviously very important to you and many others, it has little direct bearing on this discussion. That was actually pertinent to our discussion as Serephurus said the Catholic Church would not recognizing the legitimacy of the Anglican priests and bishops, and I was stating "clerical marriage" as he put it would only effect the bishops as they would have to be provided with the same rights as the Eastern Catholic Churches (which is under papal jurisdiction) due to the Code of Cannons stating all churches must be treated with equal dignity and the celibacy of a priest is a Latin element, not a universal dogma. So yes, the Law of the Catholic Church it is extremely relevant. I provided objective stats preceding the subjective articles as I know you're intelligent enough to make the inference that 1.5%(priests)<5%(teachers)<3-12%(psychologists) therefore molestation is relatively a lot lower amongst Catholic clergy than other professions. In fact rabbis have a similar percent of sexual abuse cases and you know why they aren't attacked? Because that would be "antisemitic", plus you wouldn't get much money or public attention as Jews do not have an extremely centralized head as we do. As I said being Pope's prisoner is not cuchy, I had a cousin who requested to be removed from the Vatican to like 2miles away because of the environment of everyone knowing completely everything you do from the moment you wake up to sleep. That is rather good surveillance. Anyway enough about molestation before this becomes a tangent, I'm sure as soon as the media finds something bad to pick on of another organization, I'm sure the more conservative Anglicans will begin to become Catholic as a greater rift between Anglicans forms over the ordination and marriage of gays.

Took me 9 lvls or so of Pyramid Plunder to get one scepter.

If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church wouldn't recognize the status of Anglican bishops and priests. That's a major turnoff, even for the conservatives. Part of our diocese took up the Pope's offer, but our bishop held steadfast and stayed loyal to the Anglican Communion. However, I think that if the Pope changes the Roman church's stance on clerical marriage and offers to recognize our bishops, then the Anglican Communion would not exist any longer. Anglicans are already very similar to the Catholic church as it is. Oh, and there's also the issue of paedophilia among priests in the Roman Church. I doubt that our diocese/Anglican organization would want to be affiliated with that. Marriage status is only a problem for bishops, as I am part of an Eastern Catholic Church rite and our priests are allowed to marry, in fact in North America the Roman Catholic bishops tried to put a ban on our priests marriage which worked for like 2years and than they lifted it because like a third of our priests were so offended they became orthodox. Marriage is only withheld from already ordained priests under Catholic teaching. As for bishops, a priest cannot be married to be ordained a bishop in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does recognize priest ordinations if they announce their belief in all the dogma of the Church. did you know that the rate of pedophilia in priests is lower than for almost all other groups of figures of authority? policemen, judges, teachers, counselors - they all fare worse off when you look at the statistics. the stigma of the church is why the press even bothers. I'd like to see the source for that claim. Even if it is true, there are several reasons why the church would receive more flak than those other groups. Chief among them: higher expectations, wrapping oneself in the mantle of "holiness", the matter of celibacy, and the deliberate coverups. "According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse." "Between 3 and 12 percent of psychologists have had sexual contact with their clients." "The American Medical Association found in 1986 that one in four girls, and one in eight boys, are sexually abused in or out of school before the age of 18...Shakeshaft has also determined that 15 percent of all students have experienced some kind of sexual misconduct by a teacher between kindergarten and 12th grade; the behaviors range from touching to forced penetration.[xxxvi] She and Cohan also found that up to 5 percent of teachers sexually abuse children." "The issue of child sexual molestation is deserving of serious scholarship. Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society...In a survey for the Wall Street Journal-NBC News, it was found that 64 percent of the public thought that Catholic priests frequently abused children." Another source: http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/03/pedophile-priests.html Another source: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/catholic-priests-abuse-children-at-same-rate-as-anyone-else/ Another source: http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/00197.html By the way, for those who misunderstand, it isn't a "cover-up" when priests are not "de-frocked" because they're sexually abused a child, a priest can't be "de-frocked" even if they're excommunicated. If a priest goes to confession, the priest he confesses to is obligated by the seal of reconciliation not to tell anyone under any circumstances, of even torture and death, otherwise they are immediately auto-excommunicated. For a priest to get clearance to absolve a sin of child abuse of a priest [as the priest who committed it was auto-excommunicated], they have to write to a special council in the Vatican which they are not allowed to mention the name of the abuser [who might possibly report himself to the Church out of guilt] and that is how they find out. The council first of all would most likely only tell the Pope and they can't go around spreading it. It's been forgiven so they can't pursue them for something they're pardoned on, so the most logical protocol is to recall them to Rome to keep close watch on them, it isn't a reward to be prisoner of the Pope. The child abuse scandal is overblown in the media. Has the media told you of the super strict measures the Church has been taking? No? Well that's because it doesn't make an interesting story. I know first hand as the procedure really annoys me of fingerprinting and having two fingerprinted adults present with people under the age of 18. I was running a retreat myself and it was rather a hassle as I had 4 different stations and 4 different groups so i had to have 8 fingerprinted people in total and I couldn't have non-fingerprinted people unsupervised. I'm not even allowed to meet with the four people in the board of my ministry without 2 fingerprinted adults, and we're all the same age give or take a year. Is that a logical assumption that a 16yr old can sexually abuse another in the presents of 3 others?

I think ironically the deterioration of the Anglican churches' Communion will expand the Catholic Communion because conservative Anglican bishops will take Pope Benedict XVI up on his offer for the Anglican-Catholic ordinariates. Now all the Pope needs to do is ease up on his declaration of primal supremacy and anyone who isn't in union would be a microscopic minority.

As a kid, I don't remember why but when my parents weren't home one day I went into our sauna and I found an xbox in there in a winteresque bag. I asked my brother why and he told me that parents could mail order from Santa and parents just hold onto the presents. I believed in Santa until like 5th grade.

Please find that verse for me in the Qu'ran, I'm sure it's written just as all the other imaginary verses. I only have respect for comments such as it says X if they quote, and with properly scholarly knowledge of context. There are many things misunderstood by non-Semitic language speakers which create misinterpretations. There is one verse in the Qu'ran where it commands one to "terrorize infidels". That might seem horrible at first but with proper understanding of the linguistics, a better translation would be to "evangelize people without belief in God by persistent persuasion". Also many of the hadith say God loves those who are just, not mentioning them being kafir or not, just that they do what is right. I find things such as this "protest" day with the right intent would be appropriate but with such misunderstandings such as "lawlz the Koorawn sayz keel tem wite pplz" it is out of xenophobia, misunderstanding and ignorance that people readily attack people's beliefs with offenses. Edit: By the way, I believe someone asked to see a Muslim's opinion, this was the first article I found http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-a-muslim-response-to-draw-muhammad-day-94333684.html

Right now I'm reading The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. It's one of the better books I've read recently.

I think that's great! I think as a new prayer f2p it took me much much longer than a month to get 98k. Nice stats, remember to play for enjoyment and not leveling. It's good you played 23hrs in a month, it means you have the ability to moderate how much you play, very respectable. 8/10

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?contentID=2009020828735&method=home.regcon allah akbar oh and http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/17/world/in-pakistan-rape-victims-are-the-criminals.html?pagewanted=1 How dare you, you are extremely ignorant. Was it truly necessary to say Allah akbar there? Excessive stupidity like that is why Arabs, Christian or Muslim, find Americans disrespectful and bully-ish. The depiction of Mohammad to combact a specific instance in the censorship in which the work of an artist was ruined is acceptable, but ignorant bursts of garbage like pointlessly saying Allah akbar? What is your motivation for saying that other than pure mockery? Calm down. No need to get your turban in a twist, he does have a point. Also as said above you are being very hypocritical there, oh and btw, if you hate Americans so much, why the hell do you live there? I'm not American, but love it or leave it son. :) 1. Turbans are worn by Sikhs, 16-19th century Turks and specific peoples, Semites do not wear turbans. 2. Again, I've already explain the conclusion you reach of hypocrisy is pragmatic. One is out of protest while the other one is just being insulting. While one does have the right to be offensive, why should they? Just because one has the ability to do so doesn't mean it is the polite thing to do. Visit your grandmother dying in the hospital with cancer or go to the concert you've been waiting to go to all year. While you perfectly could go to the concert with no legal impediments or questioning of right, wouldn't it be really great of you to sacrifice what you would have enjoyed in place of being with your grandmother one last time? There can also be your grandma in the hospital for knee replacement and there's a concert. You can go to the concert and than visit your grandmother maybe the next day or something with no rush as her condition is non-fatal. The same solution cannot be applied to every situation as well as just because you can doesn't mean you should. One using their rights to be offensive is just being a [puncture], but they can always utilize that same right in protest. 3. I don't hate America. I made an observation on a blatant problem. Nothing is scott-free from error, so if you recognize an error in it, you hate it? Big logical flaw.

Sorry what? That sounds like lame excuses to me. I couldn't simplify your rant more than it already was. You fail to see how ironic that you were so heated over one phrase while at the same time commending it's "fine" to just draw Mohammed. It's not just about the depiction of some worthless prophet - that would be way too easy. It's about the censorship that extremists envelop on people through terror. That's the idea you fail to comprehend because you just went raging. You don't have the right to dictate what people can criticize. We (not sure if this includes you) live in a free society. It was the principle in which you stated that one phrase out of ignorance. Again you say things like worthless prophet, this is unnecessary and you're going out of your way to mock anything that isn't your belief. And I was heated over the phrase you used because of the motivation in which you used it, you're just being pragmatic in looking at the situations. And I understand that extremists push their laws on others through terror but the ignorance you spew so readily is a cause of extremism. I don't have the right to dictate what people can criticize, I was stating my opinion seeing as how it is my right to do so. Again you go out of your way to take shots at people, "not sure if this includes you", is that really necessary you pompous child?

You have no idea how much you made me laugh. It's acceptable to depict Mohammad but you're telling me I'm censored from saying a phrase? The irony in your post is incredible because it shows just how much you don't understand. Don't call anyone ignorant, hypocrite. It is easy to over simplify things to the degree where they become out of context. I said one was for combating extremism and the other one was because of your genuine wish to mock. Tell me, did you saying Allah akbar add to the discussion? @ Skull_Emblem I didn't mean to imply Americans, I meant from my experience though than again you are right, there are the rotten of every group [but I did make it clear it was from my own experience I say many Americans are antisemitic (in the sense of Middle Eastern)]. I apologize if my statement was offensive, but again I said keywords "from my experiences" and "American populace I've dealt with". Nonetheless it might have seemed to be sweeping which I did not mean and I retract any of that connotation. My association of Semitic discrimination and a large fraction of American populace was wrongly evaluated on personal experience.

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?contentID=2009020828735&method=home.regcon allah akbar oh and http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/17/world/in-pakistan-rape-victims-are-the-criminals.html?pagewanted=1 How dare you, you are extremely ignorant. Was it truly necessary to say Allah akbar there? Excessive stupidity like that is why Arabs, Christian or Muslim, find Americans disrespectful and bully-ish. The depiction of Mohammad to combact a specific instance in the censorship in which the work of an artist was ruined is acceptable, but ignorant bursts of garbage like pointlessly saying Allah akbar? What is your motivation for saying that other than pure mockery? Nice job assuming he's an American. I wasn't assuming he was American I'm saying that's why Arabs don't like Americans. I live in America and I was pelted with food because my friends and I were speaking Arabic and we talking our "terrorist Allah-loving language". From my experiences, the general American populace that I've dealt with dislikes Middle Eastern people and displays much ignorance. In your words "nice job assuming" I was assuming anything.

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?contentID=2009020828735&method=home.regcon allah akbar oh and http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/17/world/in-pakistan-rape-victims-are-the-criminals.html?pagewanted=1 How dare you, you are extremely ignorant. Was it truly necessary to say Allah akbar there? Excessive stupidity like that is why Arabs, Christian or Muslim, find Americans disrespectful and bully-ish. The depiction of Mohammad to combact a specific instance in the censorship in which the work of an artist was ruined is acceptable, but ignorant bursts of garbage like pointlessly saying Allah akbar? What is your motivation for saying that other than pure mockery?

Proof of what, exactly? If the New Testament is so peaceful, why is it that most of the last 2,000 years has been filled with Christians slaughtering other peoples, or each other? Again -- it's not the book, it's what you do with it. The New Testament is actually extremely peaceful and the entire point of Jesus's ministry is to show Jesus would be a Messiah of peace rather than war. However there are explicit justifications of actions against "kafir" in the Qu'ran and the hadith. The words of Mohammad specifically say to not befriend kafir and instead terrorize them. Those who use this book to extremes should be silenced with satire. Even Mohammad himself commanded that they accept satire given to them and satire shall be the return! In one of the hadith [several like it] narrated by Aisha a Jew passes by and says As-samu alaikum (may death be upon you), a pun of As-salaam alaikum (may peace be upon you). The companions of Mohammad are like Prophet did you hear what that Jew said? Shall we kill him? And Mohammad said something like do not be rude to a person of the book [i.e. Jews, Christians, Muslims & Zoroastrians] and respond to their greeting with wa alaikum [and also upon you]. In that hadith Mohammad turned an insult into a joke, which certain Muslims obviously disregard if they wish to kill those who depict Mohammad. Therefore we are forced to respond in an indignant manner. [hide=Do not befriend kafir verse]"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."[/hide] -I can't find the specific hadith I was looking for but there's numerous similar ones. Edit: Yeah in the South Park episode Buddha is represented as a coke head and Jesus is a porn addict. I really don't see how this turned into a religious argument. Its not christians vs. muslims. Saruman44, Qetlar is just trying to say that religion is open to interpretation. It's isn't something that needs to be supported. I don't really feel like rewriting my paper, but a quick fun fact. When the Danish cartoons where released, Muslim nations boycotted Danish goods costing the country nearly $170 billion. Do you think this is something Comedy Central took into consideration when faced with this episode? I despise people ruled by the pocket instead of principle, it is even worse so if Comedy Central censored their writer's creative for their money rather than the thoughts of caution and offense.

His point was that it is just as offensive (to certain Christians) if you posted a picture of Jesus Christ, yet everyone (including Muslims) seem to have no qualms at all with portraying Christ. (Fakeitormakeit is a Christian who believes that the depiction of Christ is sacrilegious. I might as well point this out for the benefit of the discussion. He isn't a Muslim...) I don't believe the three dimensional depiction of Jesus is sacrilegious, I believe it is inaccurate and detracts from the Glory of God. I criticize those who would kill over the depiction of their prophets as I don't killing people for having statues of Jesus and Mary. I cannot understand why one would kill over such a depiction. If someone was drawing blasphemous pictures of God I wouldn't give them a second of my time because I don't need to waste my energy fighting lies if I know my conscience is clear. There's even a saying in Arabic that one need not speak against the accuser if he knows the clarity of his conscience, I guess these crazy peeps don't understand that concept. And yes the Eastern Churches use a lot of icons, normally a church has two on each side of the altar and many times a large iconostasis, wall of icons, in the middle. The problem is that it's offensive to the moderate Muslims as well as the extremists. You know what? If they are going to get offended by other people from other religions drawing their prophet then thats their fault. If they were actually a strong, peaceful religion then they would not care what others do or say about their religion because they would just let "god" take care of it and not them. No, it isn't their fault at all, sorry. That's not what any other religion would do, why should they? Sure, extremists murdering over it is [cabbage] and way out of line but the moderates have every right to be upset, just as members of any other religion do. Sure they have the right to be upset. I'm upset by the drug culture our society has, but what the [bleep] am I gonna do about it? I can't do much about it because I have to realize if they want to smoke pot or draw homosexual Jesus, I have to let them exercise their free rights. You have the right to express. You have the right to ignore. I like your last statement, right to express and right to ignore, although it is a bit too apathetic for my taste. This event is disrespectful and a shame it will occur because it will perpetuate the cycle of tension. However, Muslims have the ability to ignore it and so they can do just so.

Admin Edit: Let's keep this a discussion of the day, and not a "lulz, lets look at my crappy disrespectful paint drawing for the lulz" topic. I've removed the page of pictures, because some of our users *do* find them offensive. See the bottom of page 3 for more info - Das - Tip.it Admin So I'm sure many people are aware of the censorship of South Park's Episodes 201 in which even the name of the prophet Muhammad of Islam was bleeped out . In Islam there are a few hadith (Islamic textual rules) which state one is forbidden to depict Muhammad so the authors were threatened by radical Muslims that if they showed an image of Muhammad they would be killed similarly to Theo van Gogh. Other religious figures as commonly depicted often mockingly but I'm not too aware of any other extremists who murder on the grounds of depiction of a prophet. Personally in my religion we depict our religious figures icons because 3D figures such as statues are seen to be interrelated and borrowed from paganistic art which detracts from the holiness of an image of a holy being, but I don't go around smashing crucifixes and killing sculptors. I see Everybody Draw Muhammad Day as a necessary evil to protest the hysteria of avoiding depicting Muhammad at all costs. I do find it disrespectful but nonetheless one cannot extend a law not even in the holy book of a religion to be incorporated into a set of secular laws in a country where the religion is a minority. I find it extremely shameful that Comedy Central would censor Muhammad, which was an important political statement on the part of the authors of South Park. I find American responses to Islam too extreme on the spectrum; there are those who say the whole middle east should be bombed and there are those who [like Comedy Central] submit to the demands of radicals. I defend religion and its validity, as well as religion should be respected by even those who do not worship; this however transcends respect especially when you're threatened to either follow religious rules or be killed. Is Everybody Draw Muhammad Day a valid protest against religious extremism or an immature mockery of an over-harassed religion? Please try to keep the discussion intelligent and this has nothing to do with arguing if God exists or not so please don't start a theist/atheist flame war. Description on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

That sounds like abortion. This is horrible, the killing of innocents disgust me. The copycats probably saw how much attention the doctor got and wished the same for themselves. I would have had the original man killed by having him dragged by neck through the main street of the city which he was sentenced to death in, sometimes the evocation of fear is necessary.

"A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights." "A throne is only a bench covered with velvet." "Advance, and never halt, for advancing is perfection. Advance and do not fear the thorns in the path, for they draw only corrupt blood." “If you have much, give of your wealth; If you have little, give of your heart” “Sad are only those who understand” “Follow the advice of those who make you cry, never of those who make you laugh” “Sunshine all the time makes a desert” “Fear can make a donkey attack a lion” "Learn an art, put it aside" And the original quote, which the idea was plagiarized by JFK 36yrs after its publishing and yet the original author is never given credit: "Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; if the second, then you are an oasis in a desert."

Exactly, there's no national language in the United States, people get way too pissed. I dislike people who get so upset when I speak Arabic in public and they're like "z0mg t4rr0r335t! 4hhhhhhh!!!!11!!!1!!eleven!!! 4r3 j00 60nn4 b0mb u5 4 aleh?". Seriously, extremely annoying. I want to use my knowledge of Arabic to work for the FBI but ironically people say I must be a terrorist, for "ah-laah", whoever that is, which is a strange name seeing as how it means on top of in Arabic.

Fads annoy me. Especially the plaid shorts fad...

Dogmas are generally either extremely specific or too vague to have any affect on one's open-mindedness. It has to do with being a drone who follows what one person says as a dogma. For instance the Catholic dogma on creation is so reconcilable with science all the conditions needing to be met are just that God is the prime and source. It doesn't matter if the universe was created by the Big Bang or some unexplainable occurrence, however people misinterpreted the dogma in their own close-mindedness and said God directly and literally molded the earth himself 6000years ago. Most religious persons' inability to reconcile religion with reason and science is out of their own egotism, self-desire or stupidity. But dogmas have nothing to do with close-mindedness really. My grandmother who is a strict Catholic and all that who went to school when nuns and priests taught and she knows all the dogmas and stances of the major theologians yet believes in Evolution and the "glory and marvels of science" as she puts it. And to romy saying you are told what you should do is not completely correct. The canon means rules in Greek. It is not called laws, they are guidelines. Anything in the canon can be dispensed in a certain instance. Dogmatic items cannot be broken, and they're reasonable things, like one should follow what they believe in as long as it does not infringe or effect others ability and is in accordance with their conscience.