The Shape of the Field
by Lee
If you’re looking for advice on who to vote for in 2008, Jim hates McCain and digs Giuliani.
As time goes on I like McCain less and less, especially the way he’s been sucking up to the fundamentalist religious dickheads lately. I hadn’t heard about the little stunt Jim blogged on, but Giuliani is definitely my front guy. I’d say that if the GOP nominates Rudy they’ll get my vote. If they don’t, there certainly isn’t really anyone else on the potential slate (other than Ron Paul) that I’d ever consider voting for. Brownback and Romney are both reasonable on the economic side of things, but they’re in a foot race to see which one is the biggest fundamentalist lunatic.
No thanks.
Comments
I’d still love to see them throw Condi in as VP… even if purely for the stunt value.
The sound of thousands (if not more) liberal heads exploding from the paradox of the first black and female VP conflicting with her conservativeness, would be heard around the world.
Though I know most liberals just discount her as yet another wacked out neocon, no matter how intelligent she might be. It amazes me (though I should be used to it by now) how many people I’ve known for a long time, and otherwise respect, who will dismiss someone like her in a second because she happens to be conservative. Of course, these are the same people that will immediately dismiss any info from any source they feel is the slightest bit conservative, but we should all believe absolutely everything any place like the NYTimes says no matter what.
Condi might not be the right choice right now, though, mainly because she’s worked so closely with Bush. The backlash may be too difficult to overcome at this time. maybe in 2012. I’d LOVE to see her unleash that brain in a VP Debate against any of the Democrats, especially since she would no longer have to espouse the administration’s positions.
I have an idea that a Giuliani/Lieberman ticket could really shake things up. I might start a little site designed to draft that very ticket. A true Purple venture.
Condi might not be the right choice right now, though, mainly because she’s worked so closely with Bush. The backlash may be too difficult to overcome at this time. maybe in 2012. I’d LOVE to see her unleash that brain in a VP Debate against any of the Democrats, especially since she would no longer have to espouse the administration’s positions.
She could come back and it would be good to see. The economist had an interesting write up on her a few weeks back suggesting her star power has been reduced a lot by Lebanon. I would prefere Powell though to be honest even if the UN speach has reduced his credibility somewhat.
Brownback and Romney are both reasonable on the economic side of things, but they’re in a foot race to see which one is the biggest fundamentalist lunatic.
I wonder if Romney really is a fundie. He is certainly playing for the fundie votes right now but given his previous statements on various issues would have to have gone through a metamorphasis to be a paid up fundie now.
His flip flopping will by the end of him, if it was a good attack against Kerry, it will work a lot better against Romney who appears to change his opinions based on the prevailing political climate.
dick Morris Stated that Hillery and rudy will have the nomination wrapped up by the end of the year.
He also stated that Hillery will pick Henry Ford or Obama as her VP and Rudy will go get Condi to balance out the Race factor.
I think Romney has a better chance with the fundies than Rudy has. I would take either one of them over McCain, who seems to be going down like the Titanic.
BTW check this out.
Harley: I think people are looking for a clean break from Bush and Condi has been the mouthpiece for this administration overseas for too long. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lieberman stays an Independent or changes parties and Rudy picks him.
Harley: I think people are looking for a clean break from Bush and Condi has been the mouthpiece for this administration overseas for too long. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lieberman stays an Independent or changes parties and Rudy picks him.
Maybe.....you do have a point.
but Honestly it rather Have Newt in that spot.
So its Mr. Gun control vs Ms. Gun control. Super.
How can you not love Rudy? He will be prefect as as a primary canididate for the gop base.
I mean he is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-adultery. And in the general, if he gets there, who do the religious conservatives going to vote for.
I am not so sure the religious right will support him.I just cant see them voting for Rudy and my guess is they stay home.
david
I won’t vote for ANY candidate that’s weak on illegal immigration. The 1986 IRCA “One time” amnesty solved nothing and, now, some want to make the same mistake.
Rudy, in all probability, will be the GOP nominee. Barring any major upheavals, Hillary will be the next President. Sickening, isn’t it? A lot of dems can’t stand her but once she clinches the nomination all debate will stop and she will be their candidate. To many, it will be like having Bill serving his 3rd term. No way she’s picking Barack Hussein Obama as a running mate. Her best bet would be a Wesley Clark type. Someone perceived as tough...but liberal. A very rare bird.
Condi won’t be any kind of contender. She has all the personality and charisma of a brick.
So its Mr. Gun control vs Ms. Gun control. Super.
You watch - Rudy is already changing his tune from the hard-line gun control stance he used to have. The NRA is hard at work teaching him why NYC gun policy doesn’t fly in the rest of the country. he’s already moderated his views - the more he’s exposed to good, honest gun owners without being inundated - and responsible for as mayor - the worst parts of gun culture the more he learns how we feel and the more he understands us.
Besides, if this was Rudy’s only major flaw...we’re good. Gun control is a loser EVERYWHERE and not even Rudy could resurrect it.
Burns has a point - Rudy needs to toughen his views on the border. If Hills gets the Dem nomination though, she will not win. America will not elect another Clinton. Too much dynasty trading between Bush/Clinton/Bush to add another Clinton. She’s hated by half the Democrats and all the Republicans. She will get the nomination because she’s a player, but she’ll lose the general election because she’s a Clinton
We will, come hell or high water, have someone else to complain about in 2009. :)
I like Duncan Hunter.
The importance of this so-called religious right is way overrated. The fundies are an attractive punching bag for dailykos or Hustler articles, but this is not a significant voter force.
My favorite piece of voodoo on this was that poll quoted Everywhere after the 2004 election which showed that “morals” was the most biggest factor for choosing who to vote for. “Morals” got something like 12%, compared to lower percentages the many other stupid options given in the poll. We had a whole week of every paper in the country reporting this poll as proof the Christian Fundamentals have taken over the presidency. Geez, talk about knuckle dragging.
Actually, it was a misprint. It actually was asked “S’morals,” and 12% thought that it was more appealing than the poll and started drooling.. mmmm.. s’morals…
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to tell how politicians will perform in office before they are elected. Not only because so many of them are shameless and convincing liars, and even those that aren’t misrepresent compulsively, but also because the challenges they face in 2007 will not be what’s important in 2010. So, just mark your ballot at random :).
"most biggest factor” - good grief I need to preview.
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to tell how politicians will perform in office before they are elected. Not only because so many of them are shameless and convincing liars, and even those that aren’t misrepresent compulsively, but also because the challenges they face in 2007 will not be what’s important in 2010. So, just mark your ballot at random :).
This is exactly what the Greeks, who invented democracy, did for some their positions(Archons). Bringing back that and ostracism wouldn’t perhaps be that bad an idea.
Back during that Trump/Rosie flap, Trump blasted Condi too saying that that she doesn’t do anything. She flies to countries, waves when she gets off the plane, meets, then waves as she leaves. But they don’t ever accomplish anything. Trump may be on to something.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I like Romney a lot. If he’s not politically adept enough to make the media shut up about Mormon/gay/abortion, he won’t be president though.
I like Duncan Hunter.
Looks like a decnt guy, but he doesn’t have a chance.. too bad…
How can you not love Rudy? He will be prefect as as a primary canididate for the gop base.
I mean he is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-adultery. And in the general, if he gets there, who do the religious conservatives going to vote for.
I am not so sure the religious right will support him.I just cant see them voting for Rudy and my guess is they stay home.
david
This is a complete regurgitation of the effluence that Munckey espoused in an earlier thread. So, tell me - everything you wrote is obviously the type of thing that makes a liberal all tingly and giggly - why would the swing votes of dems who are repulsed by the thought of Hillary not simply replace any of those lost by the RR?
I wonder if Romney really is a fundie.
He’s Mormon, ergo he’s a fundie...no, really. If you think Bush is bad, you DON’T want a Mormon as POTUS.
As a lapsed mormon I can tell you, they have nothing in common with fundies. and, they said the same shit about kennedy because he was catholic. fundies are scarey. mormons are just odd.
I wonder if Romney really is a fundie.
He’s Mormon, ergo he’s a fundie...no, really. If you think Bush is bad, you DON’T want a Mormon as POTUS.
I wasn’t aware of this and am not sure if I actually care, yet. How in the name of Jeebus did he get elected in Massachusetts?
Too fucking funny check out the wikipedia (yeah, yeah, whatever) entry on Mitt - look at the caption of his picture on the right (no pun intended). heh
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is Mormon too. The newspapers will panic once they discover that.
NYT is going apeshit over… “Portugal to Vote on Abortion Ban” Ah! Most people don’t even know or care where Portugal is, but these NYT guys can’t pass up another story on their favorite topic, however irrelevant.
I know and work with many Mormons. The whole sacred underwear and secret handshake thing is creepy. They have similar beliefs that men will have a covey of virgins in the afterlife and they tend to treat their women like second class citizens...sound familiar? They’re very quiet and unassuming fundamentalists and they are secretive as hell about their little “religion”, <cough>cult<cough>.
We call ‘em the Mormon Mafia around here because the ends always justify the means and they are constantly trying to get “true believers”, aka other Mormons, hired or contractor jobs.
I like Jack Mormons a lot generally, however.
Futher, Momos believe that Gordon B. Hinkley is the LDS living prophet and the LDS faithful take their marching orders from him.
The difference between Mormons and Catholics is very pronounced. The mormons communities try very hard to control their members and how they live. The local mormon wards exact a very influential control over their members. They’re fundies alright…
In case you’re wondering, I’m not a big fan of Mormons.
I like Newt...so I honestly hope he decides to enter the race. I know he’s had some problems, but he’s no worse than anyone else in his personal life...he took responsibility for any ethics violations he was accused of....but he knows more about everything than anybody else. I watch him every time I get the chance to see him on television..and I read his books. He’s a genius! If it wasn’t for him, the Republicans would never have taken control of the Congress in 1994...and Bill Clinton would not have anything good to take the credit for. It’s always been my opinion that, once Gingrich left the Congress, the Republicans lost their way and started turning into Democrats.
I liked the time when I was watching him on C-SPAN and a heckler decided to ask him about his wife in reference to what Bill Clinton did...and Newt calmly began reminding him that...with his voice slowly becoming more stern and powerful, that Bill Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury--a felony that “you or I would have been sent to prison” for. He really put the kid in his place, and we need that “tell it like it is” attitude in Washington. Everyone wants to pander to the other guy...tell us what we want to hear...and turn soft on the hard questions. Ever see politicians stammer when asked things like that?? It’s why I really wanted to see Pat Buchanan included in the Presidential debates in years past. I think Newt would be such a blunt kind o’ guy.
Besides, Newt is from PA....the only other President we’ve had was James Buchanan..and all he did was pretty much sit around and wait for the Civil War to come! PA politicians have often been “cool”, be they Democrats or Republicans. You saw the Democrats’ true colors when they refused former Gov. Bob Casey the floor at the National Convention because he was pro-life.
Not all Mormons adhere to the fundamentalist interpretation that Wyznowski notes, although many do, I don’t think Romney is one of them.
However, Wyznowski is illustrating why Romney is unelectable: There are plenty of people who are suspicious of Mormons due to the historical experiences their communities had with the religion, just enough that they’re going to balk at the idea of voting for one who they’ve never met. Unfortunately, no matter how normal and mainstream Mormonism may be, they can’t shake “the Joseph Smith factor”.
I never heard of this Mormon underwear and handshake thing before. Weird.
Religious fundamentalists are people who follow the letter of their doctrines as precisely as they can. Various “Christian” cult religions like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not, in my opinion, true fundamentalists, because they don’t follow the Gospel. They have “other” doctrines they’ve cleverly added to the religion.
I think we should differentiate between “fundamentalists” and “zealots”. I consider myself a fundamentalists--but I don’t think politics should be religiously controlled, per se. I don’t think the government should fund embryonic stem cell research (private funding--I don’t care about).....and I think abortion issues and gay marriage issues should be left to the States, as the Constitution demands, even though I disagree with both abortion and gay marriage. I have no problem with gay people--have some as friends! But marriage is supposed to be a religious ritual and the government should never have begun to get involved in the first place; I’m not really sure why it ever happened. Probably to get money from selling licenses! Anyway...I think it’s the religious ZEALOTS that are the ones out there trying to advance a specific agenda, be it Christian or Jewish zealots here in the United States or Muslim zealots in the Middle East. I think a true “fundie” is harmless! :-)
(Though since the Koran preaches it is necessary to commit violence against non-Muslims in order to destroy them, I think “fundamentalists” and “zealots” in this case are pretty much the same thing.)
I never heard of this Mormon underwear and handshake thing before. Weird.
If you haven’t seen it before, this episode of South Park is the greatest ever.
We had a Mormon girl in our middle school classes...she told us they didn’t believe in rain gutters! Surely that can’t be true. Hehehe.
If you haven’t seen it before, this episode of South Park is the greatest ever.
Close, I think it takes 2nd place to the scientology one :)
It’s almost as if making fun of crazy cults is amusing.
If you haven’t seen it before, this episode of South Park is the greatest ever.
If you really want Mormon enlightenment through television, watch Big Love on HBO. Seriously. If Mormon women look like Jennifer Goodwin and want constant sex like Jeane Tripplehorn, bring it on.
Wow you guys don’t know shit about Mormons. Secret handshake? Virgins after death?? I’m not going to defend their weird religion, but damn, check yo facts, Wyznowski. I think the mormons you know are just making up shit to tell you to watch your reaction and are laughing their asses off.
Lol, ya Cartmanowski, every mormon wears a bag of gold around their neck and the leaders control every aspect of life.
Yes there is the Fundamentalist LDS (da polygamists) but they stay out of politics all together. They think the COTUS is invalid. They don’t vote. Mainstream mormons generally despise them for making the church look really bad. Stop getting your info from HBO.
At their mass (sacramant meeting) it is extrememley taboo to endorse any political figure. The official stance from GB Hinckley is to remain neutral. They won’t even officially endorse Mitt Romney, and I’d put money on that.
Whacky, yes. Fundie, not even close.
When politics and the church do mix, they bend over backwards saying they’re neutral. Mormons are also very big into the sciences, and I wouldn’t expect the religious rule from Romney that you get from Bush.
Don’t flame me for all this, I just think it would be a shame if Mitt really was a good conservative candidate but gets screwed for everyones misconceptions about his religion.
As time goes on I like McCain less and less, especially the way he’s been sucking up to the fundamentalist religious dickheads lately.
So, that’s what it took for you? I haven’t liked McCain for a long time - because he seems to suck up to whomever/whatever is in the best interest (of getting him votes) at the time.
I have the utmost respect for him for his service/sacrifice to our country. But it ends there.
Unlike Jimk, however, if it is a choice between him and Hillary, he would get my vote. I’d vote for Satan before Hillary (granted - there wouldn’t be much difference.)
Unlike Jimk, however, if it is a choice between him and Hillary, he would get my vote. I’d vote for Satan before Hillary (granted - there wouldn’t be much difference.)
I should make it clear that I was being a wiseass there. I can’t imagine a world where I ever vote for the Hildebeast. Maybe, MAYBE, if by choice were John Kerry vs. Hillary, or...well, the actual Satan...she’d have to be better than him, but other than that, no, I wouldn’t really ever vote for her.
I’d either vote third party or abstain from the presidential vote if it were Hils vs. McCain.
I’d either vote third party or abstain from the presidential vote if it were Hils vs. McCain.
And that is what you stated. I just detest her so much, I don’t think I could even abstain from voting. I would have to vote against her. I guess I would feel the need to pull an “anybody but...”. Pretty much “anybody”. Kerry vs Hillary.....I’d stay home.
And that is what you stated. I just detest her so much, I don’t think I could even abstain from voting. I would have to vote against her. I guess I would feel the need to pull an “anybody but...”. Pretty much “anybody”. Kerry vs Hillary.....I’d stay home.
Given that the same percentage of Republicans voted Green in Illinois as did Democrats, I’d say the third-party protest vote dynamic is a proven outcome of two shitty mainstream candidates.
We call ‘em the Mormon Mafia around here because the ends always justify the means and they are constantly trying to get “true believers”, aka other Mormons, hired or contractor jobs.
That’s pretty much true.
Condi won’t be any kind of contender. She has all the personality and charisma of a brick.
I, for one, am tired of all the brick bashing around here. I’m sick and tired of you people bashing bricks. It’s bullshit that you guys are constantly bashing good, honest hard-working bricks.
I’m going to back to my pro-brick, pro-rock sites like RedSlate, The Mud Report, and SlagforBush.
-Pain
fundamentalist religious dickheads
Come on, Lee, tell us what you really think of us. It’s sad to see you having to resort to insults like this to make your case. In reality, it weakens it greatly and makes you look more the fool.
McCain may be currently trying to “suck up” to us “fundies”, but that doesn’t mean that we’re falling for it. McCain has, in the past, called us even worse names that you have. He has publicly insulted Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson (just to name a few). Now, I’m not particularly found of any of those three, but they seem to be the “ideal” of what you term the “religious right”.
You can hate us all you like, Lee. So can McCain. It’s not going to make us stop loving you and praying for your salvation.
I’m not a fan of McCain because I think he spends way too much time sucking up to the press. I think he would be surprised how quickly they would turn on him if he ended up being a serious threat to Hilary, whom the press seems to have anointed as the next consul, um, President already. However, I think he’d make a great Secretary of Defense.
Duncan Hunter seems to have a lot of good ideas, but he doesn’t have the star power that McCain and Guiliani posess. I may write his name in regardless if Guiliani acts as if he can run the country the same way he ran NY--for all his accomplishments there, and opinions of NYers to the contrary, that city is NOT the center of the universe and things that worked in the city won’t be very effective in the heartland. People tend to forget how reviled he had become right before 9/11 due to his overbearing personality.
Roadknight, (my apologies everyone for changing the thread for a sec) Any updates on the two border guards in prison story? Debra Saunders did a piece yesterday, it reported that 3 other officers present at the shooting rolled over and took the immunity, testifying against the 2 border guards. Feinstein (not exactly a knee jerk liberal) is looking into this, demanding the transcripts of the trial but the D.A. isn’t releasing anything. Given all the smart people that I admire have come out stating this trial stinks to high heaven, boy, is sure is hard to find where the truth lies.
He has publicly insulted Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson (just to name a few).
I would be putting as much distance between myself and them if I were you. It seems like you’re self-labeling to a large degree.
I would be putting as much distance between myself and them if I were you. It seems like you’re self-labeling to a large degree.
Come on, GripeBoy, I know you aren’t illiterate. Continue reading what I wrote (disregard the spelling mistake):
Now, I’m not particularly found of any of those three, but they seem to be the “ideal” of what you term the “religious right”.
I specifically stated that I wasn’t fond of those three but that they seemed to be what Lee (and others) thought was the “ideal” of the “religious right”.
RichTaylor, yes, there is more. All three have admitted that they gave false testimony while on the stand. One has already resigned (that was Oscar Juarez, who resigned just before he was to be fired) and the other two are facing diciplinary action, possibly to include termination. Unfortunately, their immunity deals cover any possible perjury charge against them so that they cannot be prosecuted.
You also once asked about why Ramos and Compean failed to file a report about the shooting. From Daily Bulletin:
U.S. Border Patrol firearms policy specifically states that agents are prohibited from filing a report if a shooting incident takes place and that only an oral report to supervisors is required.
“Ensure that supervisory personnel or INS investigating officers are aware that employees involved in a shooting incident shall not be required or allowed to submit a written statement of the circumstances surrounding the incident,” according to the firearms policy. “All written statements regarding the incident shall be prepared by the local INS investigating officers and shall be based upon an interview of the INS employee.”INS refers to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which oversaw the Border Patrol prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The shooting policy has remained unchanged.
Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General documents obtained by the paper show that all nine agents on the scene at the time of the shooting - including two supervisors - knew shots had been fired.
Oscar Garcia, El Paso Border Patrol Union representative with Local 1929 and a firearms instructor, said that the Report of Apprehension or Seizure filed by Compean and Ramos on the day of the incident was accurate. Garcia stated that the agent’s omission of the shooting in the drug seizure report followed firearms policy.
“Our own policy prohibits them from filing any report on the shooting incident,” Garcia said. “The U.S. Attorney’s assertion that they covered up the incident by not filing a report is ridiculous.”
Yes, this whole case stinks. Including the fact that Johnny Sutton (the prosecutor in the case) has prosecuted a Texas deputy sheriff for shooting at (and wounding a passenger) a car filled with illegals that was trying to run him down.
Given the shooting policy (ot lack therof) that the INS has still in place, this bolsters my opinion I shared prior that this is an agency still in the stone age. The CHP (and every police agency I have been around) have a shooting team in place that is called to the scene of ALL shooting incidents. Massive written documentation follows, including written reports by ALL officers present. This kind of scrutiny is owed to the public at large primarily to show that policy was adhered to and to disprove any wrongdoing. To think that all the INS requires is ,"hey sarge, we poppied off a few rounds at this illegal today, but he got away so no big deal, you see that Mavericks game last night?”
I think in the end Bush will pardon them, if they are still alive to make that pardon.
I agree that the shooting policy is absurd, but that’s the current policy and Ramos and Compean complied with it.
I hope and pray that they are pardoned, but at this point I doubt it will happen.
I think in the end Bush will pardon them, if they are still alive to make that pardon.
Sounds like that could be a big IF.
Come on, GripeBoy
I read it. I’m just sayin’…
I read it. I’m just sayin’…
Saying what? That your reading comprehension skills are below junior-high level? Pull the other one, I know better than that. You’re one of the better read and, normally, more rational people here (excepting your apparent hatred, dislike if you prefer, for Christians).
Just because you apparently believe that those three represent the “religious right” doesn’t mean that it is true. Frankly, the only one of the three the remotely qualifies as even Christian (based on the teachings of Christ Himself) is Dobson. Of course, I’m just going by their words and actions. I have no idea of what is truly in their hearts. Only they and Christ know that.
In the time that Jesus lived, the Jewish religious leaders were more concerned with their tradition rather than the Law of Moses. Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson do the same thing by using the Gospel of Christ PLUS elements of “traditional” Christianity. True “fundies” (as you like to call us) use the Gospel only.
(excepting your apparent hatred, dislike if you prefer, for Christians)
This is what I’m talking about. I never said I hated or disliked Christians. I only cautioned you because your comments smelled of this persecution complex that so many Christians have and you mentioned those three asshats in the same breath. Face it, those three drive a lot of policy on behalf of the religious right. They set the tone for many a debate in this country and help whip up the base.
Come on, Lee, tell us what you really think of us.
You’ve labeled yourself, apparently taken some kind of offense at Lee’s comment and aligned to some degree with true “fundamentalist religious dickheads”. You tell me. You either give some creedence to the crazy shit those assholes spew or you dismiss them as complete nutballs. Yes, it’s an either/or thing.
Not really trying to pick a fight here. I just made a remark just like I would in any conversation.
All this bickering aside, what do you think of this bill? Is it moral to violate our fouth ammendment rights? Who is driving this crap? How long before we have to overthrow the government, yet again, and start over?
Good night.
You’ve labeled yourself, apparently taken some kind of offense at Lee’s comment and aligned to some degree with true “fundamentalist religious dickheads”.
Fundamentalist religious dickheads, indeed. Without whom, the Republican party cannot win national elections.
People who place their warped interpretation of their holy book over and above the Constitution of the United States.
We are one nation under God, if you don’t like it Huck then leave. Or better yet, you and your liberalz can rewrite our founding docs.
We are one nation under God, if you don’t like it Huck then leave. Or better yet, you and your liberalz can rewrite our founding docs.
Just out of curiosity, where do the words “under god” appear in the founding documents, before… say… 1950?
I never said I hated or disliked Christians.
Do you not realize that words have meanings? In post after post, where the subject of Christianity comes up, you belittle, ridicule, and insult Christians. Every time you do this you are evincing a dislike (a best) and hatred (at worst) for Christians. If you don’t truly feel that way, then why do you constantly and consistantly make such comments?
I only cautioned you because your comments smelled of this persecution complex that so many Christians have and you mentioned those three asshats in the same breath.
Christians throughout the world are being persecuted. The US is just seeing the beginings of such actions. Constitutional amendments like the ERA (which was shot down), legislation such as hate (aka - thought) crimes laws (many of which are vague and subject to abuse), and other legislation are just the begining.
In PA, 12 people (including 2 70+ yr/old grandmothers) were arrested for handing out Bible tracts and sharing the Gospel in public.
In WI, two Chistian women were fined and had to have their housing monititored because they chose a different roommate than a lesbian who had applied.
SB 1234 (CA), added “anti-reproductive-rights crimes” to the hate crimes bill and makes all pro-lifers automatic suspects.
In WA, 2 people (1 of whom was 7 months pregnant) were forced off a public bus because they were quietly discussing the Bible. The pregnant woman had to walk more than a mile to get home in the pouring rain.
These are just a few examples. Is it full blown persecution such as that seen in Romania or China under the communists? No. But the villification has already begun. That you don’t see it is either testimony to your blindness or to your involvement.
Face it, those three drive a lot of policy on behalf of the religious right. They set the tone for many a debate in this country and help whip up the base.
If the “religious right” actually was as powerful as you, Lee, and almost all liberals claim, why is abortion still legal? Why are these “hate” crimes laws being passed? Why is there still “no fault” divorce? Do you even realize how ridiculous and stupid your arguments sound? Name a single politician who is part of this so-called religious right and I’ll show you a politician that you know next to nothing about.
You either give some creedence to the crazy shit those assholes spew or you dismiss them as complete nutballs. Yes, it’s an either/or thing.
So because I agree with some of the things they say and disagree with the majority of what they “spew”, I’m like them? By that logic, you and Lee are Liberals because you think abortion should be legal, drugs should be legal, etc. Contrary to your opinion, you can agree with some people on some things and disagree on others.
All this bickering aside, what do you think of this bill? Is it moral to violate our fouth ammendment rights? Who is driving this crap? How long before we have to overthrow the government, yet again, and start over?
Was there supposed to be a link in there? Which bill are you referring to?
People who place their warped interpretation of their holy book over and above the Constitution of the United States.
Sorry, Huckleberry, but my faith in God is over and above the Constitution. As for a “warped interpretation”, I take the Bible literally. No interpretation needed.
We are one nation under God
The notion that we are a nation under a Christian God is complete and utter bullshit dreamed up by religious fundamentalist dickheads.
The notion that we are a nation under a Christian God is complete and utter bullshit dreamed up by religious fundamentalist dickheads.
So I guess the Founding Fathers of this country were “religious fundamentalist dickheads”. Their writtings prove beyond any doubt that this country was founded upon Christian principles and values.
Their writtings prove beyond any doubt that this country was founded upon Christian principles and values.
I don’t know, could the principles and values not just be those of decent human beings?
Going further, if it was based on Christian values, would not all the unsavoury OT stuff have to be included as well?
I’m not having a go RoadKnight, I’m genuinely interested in what you think.
If the “religious right” actually was as powerful as you, Lee, and almost all liberals claim, why is abortion still legal? Why are these “hate” crimes laws being passed? Why is there still “no fault” divorce? Do you even realize how ridiculous and stupid your arguments sound?
Well, they did manage to get that contemptable moron in the Whitehouse elected.
Was there supposed to be a link in there? Which bill are you referring to?
Ya, the bill McCain is drafting. Jim linked to it and Lee linked to Jim. This is why I called you out. You read something Lee said, revved up your persecution complex and ignored the whole point of the post.
The US is just seeing the beginings of such actions.
Dude, I’m almost laughing here. Christians persecuted in the US? I’m done.
So I guess the Founding Fathers of this country were “religious fundamentalist dickheads”. Their writtings prove beyond any doubt that this country was founded upon Christian principles and values.
You are wrong but I’ll give you some time to come up with links to support your claim. Go ahead.
I don’t know, could the principles and values not just be those of decent human beings?
What decent human beings would those be? The ones who choose sin and rebellion against God?
Going further, if it was based on Christian values, would not all the unsavoury OT stuff have to be included as well?
Such as? Most of our laws are based on the 10 Comandments which are found in Exodus (that’s in the Old Testament).
What decent human beings would those be? The ones who choose sin and rebellion against God?
No, I mean the ones who basically believe that people should be free do as they please unless they hurt others.
Such as? Most of our laws are based on the 10 Comandments which are found in Exodus (that’s in the Old Testament).
Such as the stuff about slavery, stoning homosexuals, etc. etc. etc. Personally, I think one or two of the commandments are sensible, but I don’t think you can say that the majority or modern legislative writing draws on “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me” et al.
Well, they did manage to get that contemptable moron in the Whitehouse elected.
Wow. They must be really powerful to have gotten Lee to vote for him (twice) too. So does that mean the Lee is also a “religious fundamentalist dickhead”?
Ya, the bill McCain is drafting.
The post wasn’t about a bill but was about McCain vs Gulliani. Next time specify.
As for the bill, ISPs are already monitoring your traffic whether you know it or not. I know, I’ve worked for a few. Because they are a private company, they don’t need a search warrant and are not subject to the Fourth Amendment. But, if this bill passes, then the ISP becomes an agent of the government and would then require a search warrant (under the Fourth).
The only potential issue I see is that you, the subscriber, do not own the line that is transmitting and receiving data. That belongs to a combination of the internet backbone (eg - Level3), the ISP (eg - Earthlink), and the phone company (eg - SBC). The bill only deals with the ISP, and it is likely that they only own the DSLAM or other routing equipment that is between the backbone and the CLEC (phone company). Is it illegal to monitor their own equipment and the traffic that passes through it? Obviously not, they own it.
Frankly, I would see the bill as a violation of the Fourth Amendment and would not approve of it’s passage. But it will take a lawyer well versed in Constitutional Law to determine whether it is constitutional or not.
Dude, I’m almost laughing here. Christians persecuted in the US? I’m done.
I don’t particularly care if you believe it or not. The facts speak for themselves. There are thousands of cases like the ones I sited above.
You are wrong but I’ll give you some time to come up with links to support your claim. Go ahead.
What? I’m wrong because you say so? Nice try. I feel no need to prove a point that is obvious to anyone who has actually read the personal (and many professional) writtings of our Founding Fathers.
Is it illegal to monitor their own equipment and the traffic that passes through it? Obviously not, they own it.
You see, here’s exactly my point. This is a point of modern law, developed for the modern world. It cannot possibly flow from the teachings of the OT.
Most of our laws are based on the 10 Comandments which are found in Exodus (that’s in the Old Testament).
You must mean 2 commandments:
No laws against:
false gods
graven images
using Gods name in vain
adultery
lying
coveting
No law says I have to:
keep the sabbath holy
honor my mother and father
This isn’t even fair at this point.
So does that mean the Lee is also a “religious fundamentalist dickhead”?
No, Lee’s just your average, ordinary dickhead and chose to vote for the guy who said he believed in conservative political principles. He obviously lied.
I feel no need to prove a point that is obvious to anyone who has actually read the personal (and many professional) writtings of our Founding Fathers.
Oh I’ve read some of them. You just can’t do it so you’re going to dismiss me. Weak.
No, I mean the ones who basically believe that people should be free do as they please unless they hurt others.
Oh, so you mean the Christians then. Ok, just so we got that straight.
Christians believe that we all have free will and can choose to do what we wish. But look at the facts of some of the actions that Christians oppose.
The cost associated with abortion is in much, much more than just the lives of unborn children. We see the pro-abortion crowd clamoring for government funded abortions. That’s the taxpayer’s money and it amounts to millions, if not billions, of dollars each year. Then there is the impact on the economy: more abortions = fewer future workers. Obviously, this also lowers the future tax base. And look at the immigration issues. Right now the United States does not have a birth rate high-enough to sustain it’s population. This means that Americans are becoming extinct.
As for legalizing drugs, there are hundreds of conflicting studies on marajuana. Many say it’s harmless, many say it’s harmful, so I’ll leave that particular drug alone. But all other illegal drugs most definately have negative impacts on society and our economy. Do you honestly believe that legalization and regulation would make those problems disappear? Most drug addicts will do anything for their next high. Steal, murder, whatever they have to do to get their next fix. Legalizing drugs would cause a far worse impact on society and the economy than keeping them illegal. And, if they were legalized and some addict killed someone else, I can almost guarantee that they would get off for “mental defect” or “temporary insanity”. There would also be the usual round of frivolous lawsuits seeking damages from the government (i.e. - the taxpayer) for legalizing the drug and “making them addicted”.
Gay marriage is not much better than the first two. For one thing, health benefits for same sex partners are very, very expensive. Why, even a leading GLBT organization and magazine had to discontinue health benefits for same sex partners because of the cost (even while calling on all companies to provide them and claiming they weren’t prohibitively expensive). Even without the religious implication of same sex marriage, homosexual sex is one of the most dangerous behaviors a person can engage in. Homosexual males are 4,000% more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than hetrosexual men. Homosexual women are at a slightly lower risk (2,500% higher than hetrosexual women). Homosexuals (both men and women) have much higher rates of domestic violence, drug use, mental illness, and STD infection than hetrosexuals. These greatly increased risks add to the cost of insurance, healthcare, etc. In addition, over 10,000 studies have shown that traditional marriage is 1) the safest place for women, 2) the healthiest place for men, and 3) the best place for raising children.
But having legal abortions, legalizing drugs, and same-sex marriage doesn’t “hurt others”, does it.
Such as the stuff about slavery, stoning homosexuals, etc. etc. etc. Personally, I think one or two of the commandments are sensible, but I don’t think you can say that the majority or modern legislative writing draws on “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me” et al.
Ok, let’s talk about slavery. Christ Himself came to set the slaves free. In other words, Jesus abolished slavery with His work on the Cross. That’s not just slavery to sin, but all slavery.
When it comes to stoning homosexuals, there is not any record in Jewish history of this having been done. But more than that, that was part of the Jewish religious tradition that Jesus condemned and not part of God’s Law.
One of the problems you (and others) have is that you fail to see and use the full context of various passages. There are essentially three contexts for each verse. 1) The verse itself. 2) The chapter and book the verse is in. 3) Scripture as a whole.
It’s not just you that does this. I know of many who call themselves Christians but would use passages in the OT to condone killing abortion doctors, homosexuals, and others who violate God’s Law. If I were to pick and choose scripture rather than looking at all three of the contexts I mentioned above, I could justify almost any sin.
Our founders, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, created a secular constitution. It was specifically written to protect us from a theocracy or governing “under God”.
The laws we have that map to the ten commandments only map to two: don’t kill and don’t steal. You know, if I’m not mistaken, those two are present in damn near every society on earth. WTF?
Do you know what a Deist is?
I never said I hated or disliked Christians.
Do you not realize that words have meanings? In post after post, where the subject of Christianity comes up, you belittle, ridicule, and insult Christians. Every time you do this you are evincing a dislike (a best) and hatred (at worst) for Christians. If you don’t truly feel that way, then why do you constantly and consistantly make such comments?
Words definitely have meanings and the first amendment unfortunately protects just about any and all of them. Harboring opinions that might not flow with the mainstream is also one of the bedrocks of our nation. So important even, that it got put on the top of the list of freedoms we are entitled to.
Now, fundamentalist (sigh, even this is PC now) don’t seem to like this right, and have consistently fought for the government to shut people up that say scary things. I wonder what they pointed to for thier moral compass?
If the “religious right” actually was as powerful as you, Lee, and almost all liberals claim, why is abortion still legal? Why are these “hate” crimes laws being passed? Why is there still “no fault” divorce? Do you even realize how ridiculous and stupid your arguments sound?
Because no matter how detestible these laws are the Wahibbi laws that fundamentalists propose would be an even worse alternative. Unfortunately having fundamentalists on your team is inviting in the vampire, and the country has consistently (up to this point) aired on the side of caution when people start thumping books.
A question of ‘how ridiculous and argument sounds’ is also in the eye of the beholder. If people choose to live thier lives abiding by what is written in the Bible it is completely up to the individual to come to that conclusion. These ‘salad days’ that fundies think we would revert to in society if we would just abide by christian morals amaze me. RK, so if you had your way, and you could force theocracy down America’s throat just what specific era would you cherry pick as a time when we were on the right path?
I don’t particularly care if you believe it or not. The facts speak for themselves. There are thousands of cases like the ones I sited above.
So it’s persecution if you don’t get your way? Look, in the state of california I can’t buy a hooker. I guess that would be persecution as well? I mean, if I lobbied for it first, and failed? I guess Mormans are persecuted for not being allowed to practice polygamy?
And the laws you point to are utter horseshit. The reason why stupid laws get passed is because some asshole went to far. I wouldn’t agree with a myriad of laws passed but if I gave that much of a fuck, I might involve myself in the process.
I love the premise of this. Christians are now a minority that is oppressed. The victim card.
Such as? Most of our laws are based on the 10 Comandments which are found in Exodus (that’s in the Old Testament).
And the kicker. A little piece of fiction completely conjured up from your imagination. I guess you’ll offer us a ride on your time machine to confirm this little piece of nonsense?
this is a pretty consistent attitude for fundies. “Here is the thousand piece puzzle that shows god’s will. Now put it together for me.”
Christianity might or might not play a role in our everyday lives. However to assume power and control based on a particular bias is going to far.
Look, gripe has it right, IMHO. Religion is cool as long as you don’t take it too far, and you’re taking it way into the redline.
What? I’m wrong because you say so? Nice try. I feel no need to prove a point that is obvious to anyone who has actually read the personal (and many professional) writtings of our Founding Fathers.
oh, and i’m sure that you walked into the bookstore and atheist and walked out completely convinced of god’s influence on the forefathers and constitution afterwards?
No, I mean the ones who basically believe that people should be free do as they please unless they hurt others.
Oh, so you mean the Christians then. Ok, just so we got that straight.
Er, no. Christians believe that I’m doomed forever because I have taken an action which has hurt no-one (my disbelief in God).
Moving on, you present three strands.
I’m not going to argue for abortion, because I don’t personally think it’s a good thing. And I’m an atheist. Surely that shows that this is not an issue which requires religious guidance?
Decriminalising drugs. I’d be tempted to decriminalise dope, but not the others. More or less your position, then. I’m an atheist. Again, surely that shows that this is not an issue which requires religious guidance?
Gay marriage. You’ve gone to great lengths to describe the health risks to homosexuals. So, don’t you think that the best way to reduce those risks might be to encourage monogamous relationships?
Our founders, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, created a secular constitution. It was specifically written to protect us from a theocracy or governing “under God”.
As a Christian I believe Gribeboy is correct. Regardless of the founding fathers beliefs the Constitution was written to be all inclusive, to protect its citizens from religios persection as well as from religious zealots. I have no doubt that there were atheists at the constitional convention that were instrumental in its drafting. The atheist must have every constitutional protection that a believer has, or our government is meaningless.
A little off topic but relevent in the Christian scheme of things:
Kansas repeals Intelligent Design
From the article:
The board on Tuesday removed language suggesting that key evolutionary concepts — such as a common origin for all life on Earth and change in species creating new ones — were controversial and being challenged by new research. Also approved was a new definition of science, specifically limiting it to the search for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe.
“Those standards represent mainstream scientific consensus about both what science is and what evolution is,” said Jack Krebs, a math and technology teacher who helped write the new guidelines. He is also president of Kansas Citizens for Science.
Heh.
Posted by GripeBoy on 02/13/07 at 11:23 AM from United States
Most of our laws are based on the 10 Comandments which are found in Exodus (that’s in the Old Testament).
You must mean 2 commandments:
No laws against:
false gods
graven images
using Gods name in vain
adultery
lying
covetingNo law says I have to:
keep the sabbath holy
honor my mother and fatherThis isn’t even fair at this point.
I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m still waiting to hear how our laws are based on some of the other commandments, because like GripeBoy points out, the no killing/no stealing thing is common to most societies on earth regardless of whether they’ve ever been Christian or not.
like GripeBoy points out, the no killing/no stealing thing is common to most societies on earth regardless of whether they’ve ever been Christian or not.
Perhaps, but those concepts came to us via Christianity. Like it or lump it, one of the main reasons many, if not most, settlers came from Europe to North America during the Colonial period was to practice their Christian faith in peace.
And the Constitution was debated by all the States’ representatives before being ratified—it wasn’t just handed down from On High by a bunch of Deists. Some of the framers were indeed Christians.
I have seen this duplicity quite often. When Chrisitanity provides something “good” to us, well, that really came from “Somewhere Else”. But when Christianity does something “bad”, well, that’s 100% Christianity’s fault.
Cherry picking at its finest.
I have seen this duplicity quite often. When Chrisitanity provides something “good” to us, well, that really came from “Somewhere Else”. But when Christianity does something “bad”, well, that’s 100% Christianity’s fault.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Religion has done some great things for both people and society. it still doesn’t mean that we should all be forced to observe the entirety of it, even if it is counter-intuitive at this point in history.
cherry picking indeed. Cherry picking a couple of successes in order to justify a myriad of failures to go along with.
Perhaps, but those concepts came to us via Christianity.
Yeah, nobody had ever heard of those concepts before a couple thousand years ago.
When Chrisitanity provides something “good” to us, well, that really came from “Somewhere Else”. But when Christianity does something “bad”, well, that’s 100% Christianity’s fault.
The problem is some Christians think they have a monopoly on morality, which they don’t. The fact is, you’re just another religion in a sea of religions, each with pretty much the same core set of morals. You’re not really that special.
Yeah, nobody had ever heard of those concepts before a couple thousand years ago.
When it comes to (deliberately?) missing the point, you are as talented as Mr. Munck.
You’re not really that special.
Couldn’t care less whether you think we’re “special”. Just acknowledge that Christianity and Christian principles did play a (positive) role in the USA’s founding, and stop trying to deny that.
Their writtings prove beyond any doubt that this country was founded upon Christian principles and values.You are wrong but I’ll give you some time to come up with links to support your claim. Go ahead.
No link, just a quote (emphasis added):
The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.
(John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and
Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon, 1987, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 339-340.)
Of course, John Adams could have been wrong, and you could be right, but I would place my bet on Adams. He was there. You weren’t.
And there is no reply from Jefferson disputing Adams’ claim.
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with responding to this claim:
the no killing/no stealing thing is common to most societies on earth regardless of whether they’ve ever been Christian or not
Can’t you figure anything out on your own?
Religion has done some great things for both people and society. it still doesn’t mean that we should all be forced to observe the entirety of it
Thanks for the acknowledgement, but I, for one, am not asking you to “observe the entirety of it”.
Cherry picking a couple of successes in order to justify a myriad of failures to go along with.
Focusing on that which is relevant and discarding the rest isn’t “cherry picking”.
Focusing on that which is relevant and discarding the rest isn’t “cherry picking”.
Absolutely right. perhaps I lumped you in with Roadknight. I am stating that if you wish to make yourself feel better and lay claim to christianity in the constitution, be my guest. As a matter of fact no one would even think for a minute you need permission. But, if you think that we need to run more of society by chrisitan rules, it is up for debate.
Roadknight came from this point of view that if we were only to allow christian morals to dictate society we would be better off. I completely disagree.
Marriage: In the abscence of divorce there are open marraiges. Even a divorce lawye will tell you it is an alternative to divorce. Is THAT the type of society christian moralists want? Hidden adultery? Or can you simply say that life isn’t black or white all of the time? Things sometimes don’t work out.
Abortion: A horrible alternative to having a child, but many believe to take the option away will do more to harm society than it would help. I don’t like it, the thought of it repulses me. My answer, to be careful about my partners. My choice in the matter. Not the governments.
Gay marraige: We can either have Ted Haggard/catholic priest horror stories for the rest of time or we can accept that this has been occuring from the beginning of time. Right or wrong it exists in society. Even under Wahibbi Islam (homosexuality is strictly forbidden) in Afghanistan there is a record of it. Now we can either admonish and advocate stoning in order to frighten the meek or undecided, or we can approach the situation like rational human beings. to each thier own. If fundies feel so strongly about homosexuality, turn of the television, don’t buy from a florist don’t dare get an expensive haircut, and above all else don’t go to disneyworld/land/watch Dtv.
It has to do with responding to this claim:
the no killing/no stealing thing is common to most societies on earth regardless of whether they’ve ever been Christian or not
And the schmuck is absolutely right, right back to the beginning of time. Many pagan societies in Europe had much the same laws on morality devoid of christian influence. You might want to read a little history to find out more. I know it bothers fundies to no end, but christianity is actually a pretty new idea in the grand scheme of things. Babylon is no excuse to think that all other societies that don’t have christianity simply fell from god’s graces.
Read aout Finnish history. they didn’t get christianity until the 12th century, and it was the Swedish crusades that brought it there. Believe in whatever dogma you will, but conversion at the end of a sword was probably more responsible for the proliferation of christianity in Europe than any peaceful conversion. It may be painful to hear, but any ideology is subject to perversion and many people against willfully giving secular society away to theocracy see the invitation for exploitation as clear as glass.
The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united:
A quote with no reference can be easily disregarded. As this one will be. It is also written in the third person, I presume?
Just acknowledge that Christianity and Christian principles did play a (positive) role in the USA’s founding, and stop trying to deny that.
I’m not trying to deny that Christianity played a role, both positive and negative. Of course it did. What I’m denying is this notion that Christianity was the sole basis for our founding and that we are a Christian nation.
If you want to pull quotes, we can play that. Adams was one of the most devoutly religious of all the founding fathers and a Christian. It’s no surprise you picked him. I can find quotes from many of the others indicating they were suspicious of Christian dogma and felt no need to surrender their reason to a Christian faith.
Just admit that the principals on which our great country was founded extend beyond Christianity and it was by no means the sole basis for our law.
And the schmuck is absolutely right
Right, but irrelevant. It is through the conduit of Judeo-Christianity that we got those concepts, that’s my point. We didn’t get “do not kill” from Confucius or Buddah, for example, even if they advocated that concept.
A quote with no reference can be easily disregarded.
The reference was the part in parens:
(John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon, 1987, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 339-340.)
It’s a book that’s available at any chain bookstore, and it’s available from Amazon as well.
I’m sure it’ll still be distregarded, however.
Just admit that the principals on which our great country was founded extend beyond Christianity
Done.
Right, but irrelevant. It is through the conduit of Judeo-Christianity that we got those concepts, that’s my point. We didn’t get “do not kill” from Confucius or Buddah, for example, even if they advocated that concept.
Point taken. seems like we see eye to eye.
It’s a book that’s available at any chain bookstore, and it’s available from Amazon as well.
I’m sure it’ll still be distregarded, however.
So we’ve established that was the opinion of John adams. It’s not disregarded. i’m still not going to think that other than an influence, it was not explicitly written in the text of the Constitution for a specific reason.
If you want to pull quotes, we can play that.
Amusing, since it was you who said:
You are wrong but I’ll give you some time to come up with links to support your claim.
Now I’ll admit up front that “link” and “quote” aren’t synonymous, but I really didn’t think it would be an issue. I thought you simply challenged us to support our view(s).
I am aware of the criticisms levelled against Christianity by the Founding Fathers, including John Adams himself. I am also aware of the Treaty of Tripoli that so many people trot out to “prove” we aren’t/weren’t a “Christian Nation”. And I am aware that the “Creator” Jefferson invoked in the DoI could very well have been the same “Creator” Cicero invoked centuries earlier. Again, my only point is to acknowledge that Christianity did indeed play a substantial part in the USA’s founding. It seems that modern Secular Progressives want to deny that fact.
substantial part in the USA’s founding
Here you go. This is projection.
it was not explicitly written in the text of the Constitution for a specific reason
You are correct—the Founding Fathers did indeed seek to deliberately create an explicitly secular Federal Government, no doubt. But they still lived in a milieu of Christiandom, and Judeo-Christian thinking did indeed shape their views, even if they weren’t explicitly Christian themselves.
This is projection.
Would you have preferred “non-trivial”?
Again, my only point is to acknowledge that Christianity did indeed play a substantial part in the USA’s founding.
Ok. No one can really quantify the degree in which Christianity played a role but I have aknowledged that it clearly had an impact. I’m not trying to dismiss it’s role. Even today, as an agnostic, Christianity continues to shape my personal views to some degree or another. It’s unavoidable when the majority religion in the country is Christian.
I guess I’m just frustrated when people (not you) claim that we were, are and will always be a Christian nation. Pounding that over and over paves the way for Christian fundamentalist radicals to ram their agenda through. They are lying. We were not founded as a Christian nation. We are not currently a Christian nation any more than we are a “white” nation. I find the whole notion abhorrent and counter to the very principles on which the country WAS founded.
But they still lived in a milieu of Christiandom, and Judeo-Christian thinking did indeed shape their views, even if they weren’t explicitly Christian themselves.
Okay, then what fundamentalists suffer from is the perversion of the very thing they champion.
Roadknight came from this point of view that if we were only to allow christian morals to dictate society we would be better off. I completely disagree.
FWIW, I don’t think RoadKnight is advocating compulsory adherence to Christian values. I think he is merely pointing out some of the drawbacks to current societal practices, and suggesting that some of those drawbacks would be mitigated if a Christian outlook were prevalent.
In general, I happen to agree.
That doesn’t mean I advocate for a “theocracy” or anything else as ridiculous. I honestly don’t think RoadKnight does, either. However, if the population of the USA is indeed predominately Christian, it does seem wrong that anti-Christian values or practices should be dictated by a non-Christian minority.
However, if the population of the USA is indeed predominately Christian, it does seem wrong that anti-Christian values or practices should be dictated by a non-Christian minority.
It seems wrong that we should live by tyranny of the majority.
It seems wrong that we should live by tyranny of the majority.
Perhaps, but is a tyranny of the minority the proper solution?
And why do we assume that implementing the views of the majority must automatically result in a “tyranny”?
I think “tyranny of the majority” is an abused phrase. My understanding is that it was invoked in order to justify the electoral college, the alternative being that the two or three most populous states would essentially dictate all national elections, hence “tyranny”. But I think it is easy to missapply such rhetoric.
However, if the population of the USA is indeed predominately Christian, it does seem wrong that anti-Christian values or practices should be dictated by a non-Christian minority.
A veiled admission that you want to have your agenda met, and that most of the previous level-headedness was for show.
And why do we assume that implementing the views of the majority must automatically result in a “tyranny”?
History proves it is.
it does seem wrong that anti-Christian values or practices should be dictated by a non-Christian minority.
What, exactly, is being dictated?
Everyone is free to not have an abortion. If gay marriage were legal, everyone would still be free to enter a heterosexual marriage.
is a tyranny of the minority the proper solution?
Something you don’t approve of being legal does not constitute tyranny, unless the law specifically states you have to participate.
What, exactly, is being dictated?
I can only project, but if i’m understanding this, Icon thinks that secualr laws that contradict christian values are laws that dictate a christian majority. Laws like legal abortion, gay marraige, etc.
I guess christians living in a country of abortions and gay marraige would be persecution of some sort.
A veiled admission that you want to have your agenda met, and that most of the previous level-headedness was for show.
On the contrary, you’re just being paranoid. For the record, I am not interested in overturning Roe v Wade, for example. No, ideally, Roe v Wade would simply be relegated to irrelevance, but that is easier said than done.
My only “agenda” is to have you guys see my point of view. I would welcome a thoughtful analysis of my observation:
However, if the population of the USA is indeed predominately Christian, it does seem wrong that anti-Christian values or practices should be dictated by a non-Christian minority.
IF the population is predominately Christian (I’m not claiming it is, just asking the question), then why should it be expected to kow-tow to the view of the minority?
It’s just a hypothetical question. No need to be paranoid about it.
IF the population is predominately Christian (I’m not claiming it is, just asking the question), then why should it be expected to kow-tow to the view of the minority?
Icon all of your comments and questions are loaded. you either have a point or you don’t. these little games that you play where you set these arguments up for failure are getting a bit old.
If christians were the majority, then there would be no minority to dictate to them. Any “dictating” would come from a majority via the senate that would also be a ‘majority’ in favor.
Right, but irrelevant. It is through the conduit of Judeo-Christianity that we got those concepts, that’s my point. We didn’t get “do not kill” from Confucius or Buddah, for example, even if they advocated that concept.
I don’t think Christianity needs to be the place we got this from. Seems like if you are endeavoring to set up a functioning government and create a society, not killing each other and not stealing from each other would be as easily attributed to common sense as any religious traditions.
Did somebody say: well, murder and theft should be crimes, because the Bible says so?
Or did they just say: murder and theft should be crimes because if we want this new society to function, that’s the obvious first step.
Did somebody say: well, murder and theft should be crimes, because the Bible says so?
Probably not, but then, it was just an example for the sake of discussion. If it makes you feel personally gratified and fulfilled to fantasize the Founding Fathers not standing around saying, “Well, gee golly, the Bible says ‘thou shalt not kill’, so maybe we should make murder illegal...”, then have at it. It only illustrates how desperate you are to not give Christianity any credit whatsoever.
Besides, the point of drafting the Constitution was not to “make murder illegal”, but to form a government—it would be that government’s job to “make murder illegal”. However, the First Amendment does indeed recognize that some kind of power higher than the Constitution exists. That’s why the Constitution forbids the government from making laws that infringe on the right to worship.
Yes, I know that secularists like to focus on the other part, which forbids the government from endorsing a particular religion, but the two go hand in hand.
And again, the Constitution was hotly debated by a predominately Christian population before it was ratified, and many of the framers were themselves Christian. Secularists all too often try to ignore this as they try to proclaim the Constitution a work of isolated Deism and “Enlightenment”.
And again, the Constitution was hotly debated by a predominately Christian population before it was ratified, and many of the framers were themselves Christian. Secularists all too often try to ignore this as they try to proclaim the Constitution a work of isolated Deism and “Enlightenment”.
Oh yeah. I think Jesus actually showed up for the after ratification party and chiled ot having a couple of beers with the peeps. Just cause they were all so holy and cool.
hey Icon, didn’t they dunk jesus with the Gatorade container after the Declaration of independence?
Again, Manwhore displays his inability to hold a rational discussion. Ironic, given:
A veiled admission that you want to have your agenda met, and that most of the previous level-headedness was for show.
Project much, Manwhore?
Does Christianity frighten you that much???
Secularists all too often try to ignore this as they try to proclaim the Constitution a work of isolated Deism and “Enlightenment”.
But they did make a significant contribution just like Christians, right?
I know you said “isolated Deism”. There’s really no such thing in a majority Christian society. See my previous comment where I support that.
Anyway, the debate has run it’s course. Peace out!
Probably not, but then, it was just an example for the sake of discussion. If it makes you feel personally gratified and fulfilled to fantasize the Founding Fathers not standing around saying, “Well, gee golly, the Bible says ‘thou shalt not kill’, so maybe we should make murder illegal...”, then have at it. It only illustrates how desperate you are to not give Christianity any credit whatsoever.
Actually, I’d bet the rent money that the Founding Fathers never debated theft or murder while considering the Constitution, as they largely considered criminal prosecution to be matters of the sovereign states. Of course there were a few exceptions--treason, crimes by public officials, etc.
However, the First Amendment does indeed recognize that some kind of power higher than the Constitution exists.
Actually that’s kind of meaningless, since the people in the late 18th century had no more ability to prove the existence of any divine being than we have today. Simply because they wrote about a ‘Creator’ a few times in the Constitution doesn’t bring one into existence. They might just as easily said ‘we believe these rights are universal truths and we hereby recognize them’ and it would have been the same.
No, icon. I just had to laugh a little there when you started to lay it on thick and sappy, and wanted to add a little more sarcasm on top of it.
You know, like this little gem:
If it makes you feel personally gratified and fulfilled to fantasize the Founding Fathers not standing around saying, “Well, gee golly, the Bible says ‘thou shalt not kill’, so maybe we should make murder illegal...”, then have at it. It only illustrates how desperate you are to not give Christianity any credit whatsoever.
You’re a one trick pony, and your ad homenim is pretty apparent at this point. subjective hypothetical, ad homenim, etc. And then complain about rationality. rationality would also be coming to a conclusion about all of this, but you display the stubborness of a crack whore pursuing a fix ( a little joke there, don’t get your panties wadded up). you just keep blathering on and on over the same thing. I think we have where you’re coming from. So now what? What do we do with you’re point of view? It’s pretty obviuos that it will never justify further biblical influence over the constitution, and you will continue to be oppressed by a secular minority? Is that right, or do you need more elaboration?
However, the First Amendment does indeed recognize that some kind of power higher than the Constitution exists.
The First Amendment does no such thing. The First Amendment reads…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where do you find, in the above 45 words, recognition that a higher power than the Constitution exists?
I think he misspoke and was talking about the part of the DofI that references a ‘Creator’.
If you search the text of the Constitution, you won’t find the words God, Jesus, Bible, Christian, or Jehovah anywhere at all.
Funny...must have been an oversight by the people creating a Christian nation.
All the founders ever said was “creator”. That is general enough to mean almost anything or anyone.
Earth
Universe
Mother Nature
God(s)
A Parent
FSM
I’m sure someone disagrees. I’m sure there has been much research and debate over their intent. Fact is, that’s all it says in the Declaration of Independence.
Wait, I thought I was done with this thread! What the hell?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Where do you find, in the above 45 words, recognition that a higher power than the Constitution exists?
The first two clauses, the part forbiding Big Brother from telling me how to worship the God of my choice. That implicitly recognizes that some kind of God exists, even if the recognition is passive.
You can argue that it only means that the First Amendment recognizes that people think a God exists, but then you would need to provide evidence that the Founding Fathers actually meant that. Criticism of Christianity’s shortcomings isn’t “proof” that it’s “wrong”, by the way, and even Deists believe in some sort of deity.
Funny...must have been an oversight by the people creating a Christian nation.
Huck, kindly point out where I ever claimed the USA was a “Christian nation”. Saying that the population was predominately Christian is not claiming that it was a “Christian nation”.
Actually that’s kind of meaningless, since the people in the late 18th century had no more ability to prove the existence of any divine being than we have today.
Actually, your claim is meaningless, given that one doesn’t have to “prove the existence” of something in order to recognize it.
All the founders ever said was “creator”. That is general enough to mean almost anything or anyone.
Indeed, and this is what I have already said on the issue:
I am aware that the “Creator” Jefferson invoked in the DoI could very well have been the same “Creator” Cicero invoked centuries earlier.
I repeat that for Huck’s benefit—he seems to be just as recalcitrant and obtuse as Manwhore.
No, icon. I just had to laugh a little there when you started to lay it on thick and sappy,
Where I started...???? No, Manwhore, I was responding to:
Did somebody say: well, murder and theft should be crimes, because the Bible says so?
Which is an example of that obtuseness I mentioned.
you just keep blathering on and on over the same thing
Because people like you refuse to get it the first time, or the second, or the third…
Yes, I have admitted that I slip into ad hominem from time to time, but ad hominem seems be your primary response. I try to make it a last resort, but obtuseness on your part and Huck’s causes me to lapse. If you actually read and comprehend my statements, you will see that I am not being unreasonable. But for some reason, you dismiss my reasonableness as “show”:
A veiled admission that you want to have your agenda met, and that most of the previous level-headedness was for show.
The only “veiled admission” was in your fertile imagination. I suspect that you were waiting all morning for me to say something that you could use to justify accusing me of something (yeah, “victim card”, whatever), when all I said was that it seemed wrong for a minority to dictate to a majority. I was simply expressing an opinion, and you had to turn that into an accusation of pushing some kind of agenda.
If I therefore conclude from your actions that you are paranoid and that you project, well, that ain’t ad hominem so much as observation.
So now what? What do we do with you’re point of view?
For starters, you can quit making accusations that I’m “pushing” some kind of “agenda” when all I am doing is expressing opinions and engaging in discussion.
If you wanna keep defending Huck as he tries to deny that Christianity had any part in the USA’a founding, I will keep reminding you that it did have a “non-trivial” (since “substantial” seems to offend you) part.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
The first two clauses, the part forbiding Big Brother from telling me how to worship the God of my choice. That implicitly recognizes that some kind of God exists, even if the recognition is passive.
I think you are letting the way you believe in the existence of your God interfere with how you interpret the constitution. With no facts, and a lot of projection.
The only “veiled admission” was in your fertile imagination. I suspect that you were waiting all morning for me to say something that you could use to justify accusing me of something (yeah, “victim card”, whatever), when all I said was that it seemed wrong for a minority to dictate to a majority. I was simply expressing an opinion, and you had to turn that into an accusation of pushing some kind of agenda.
If I therefore conclude from your actions that you are paranoid and that you project, well, that ain’t ad hominem so much as observation.
You’re adding statements not directed at you into my argument with you. I know it helps your martyrdom if you can pile shit on top of your persecution, but let’s ‘keep it real’. I didn’t think christianity allowed lying as a part of the mindset, but go right ahead. You certainly seem to be more than capable of it to justify yourself.
If I therefore conclude from your actions that you are paranoid and that you project, well, that ain’t ad hominem so much as observation.
Um, before you start patting yourself on the back remember you have not only lied, your ‘observations’ are to be questioned as well. You also believe in something that doesn’t exist, and that’s probably all that needs to be said to exonerate myslef.
Remember this Icon, you have based your opinion on a lie you made up about me, so who’s paranoid?
For starters, you can quit making accusations that I’m “pushing” some kind of “agenda” when all I am doing is expressing opinions and engaging in discussion.
No you aren’t. You think your playing some little sort of hat trick that can fool people into thinking some phenomenon exists when it doesn’t. You’re being smarmy, and pompous, and self righteous. Who would’ve guessed that you were passive aggressive?
If you wanna keep defending Huck as he tries to deny that Christianity had any part in the USA’a founding, I will keep reminding you that it did have a “non-trivial” (since “substantial” seems to offend you) part.
See there? Another lie in bold. I’m not defending the schumck, I don’t have to. I already wrote that I agreed that christianity had some kind of possible influence (nothing concrete, but maybe inspirational) in the inception of our government.
Now back to the ‘hypotheticals’. So what if it did? It doesn’t now, and it never will from this day forward, what do you want?
I didn’t think christianity allowed lying as a part of the mindset…
...you have not only lied…
...you have based your opinion on a lie you made up about me…
So, rather that cease and desist with the accusations, you simply pile on more accusations.
What is this alleged “lie” on my part, Manwhore?
That you are paranoid? Obtuse? Recalcitrant?
Sorry, that is simply conclusion based on observation. If my perceptions of you are wrong, you have the power to rectify said perceptions.
Calling me a liar won’t go very far in that regard.
Manwhore, this seems to be you defending Huck:
Huck:
Did somebody say: well, murder and theft should be crimes, because the Bible says so?
Me:
If it makes you feel personally gratified and fulfilled to fantasize the Founding Fathers not standing around saying, “Well, gee golly, the Bible says ‘thou shalt not kill’, so maybe we should make murder illegal...”, then have at it. It only illustrates how desperate you are to not give Christianity any credit whatsoever.
You:
No, icon. I just had to laugh a little there when you started to lay it on thick and sappy, and wanted to add a little more sarcasm on top of it.You know, like this little gem:
If it makes you feel personally gratified and fulfilled to fantasize the Founding Fathers not standing around saying, “Well, gee golly, the Bible says ‘thou shalt not kill’, so maybe we should make murder illegal...”, then have at it. It only illustrates how desperate you are to not give Christianity any credit whatsoever.
You’re a one trick pony, and your ad homenim is pretty apparent at this point.
Fogive me, but that certainly looks like you defending Huck when Huck is trying to deny any credit to Christianity. And again, I never denied engaging in ad hominem to begin with, so why you make it an issue is anyone’s guess.
Let’s start this right up then:
Here’s me(in bold):
Right, but irrelevant. It is through the conduit of Judeo-Christianity that we got those concepts, that’s my point. We didn’t get “do not kill” from Confucius or Buddah, for example, even if they advocated that concept.
Point taken. seems like we see eye to eye.
So there’s the first little piece of your argument gone.
What is this alleged “lie” on my part, Manwhore?
If you wanna keep defending Huck as he tries to deny that Christianity had any part in the USA’a founding, I will keep reminding you that it did have a “non-trivial” (since “substantial” seems to offend you) part.
1. it’s a lie. I never said it offended me. I said it was projection, but I never said it offended me.
I don’t particularly care if you believe it or not. The facts speak for themselves. There are thousands of cases like the ones I sited above.
So it’s persecution if you don’t get your way? Look, in the state of california I can’t buy a hooker. I guess that would be persecution as well? I mean, if I lobbied for it first, and failed? I guess Mormans are persecuted for not being allowed to practice polygamy?
And the laws you point to are utter horseshit. The reason why stupid laws get passed is because some asshole went to far. I wouldn’t agree with a myriad of laws passed but if I gave that much of a fuck, I might involve myself in the process.
I love the premise of this. Christians are now a minority that is oppressed. The victim card.
2. Lie. Here’s what you said about this quote:
The only “veiled admission” was in your fertile imagination. I suspect that you were waiting all morning for me to say something that you could use to justify accusing me of something (yeah, “victim card”, whatever)
If you’re refering to the “victim card” it resides in THIS post beloning to:
Posted by RoadKnight on 02/13/07 at 11:20 AM from
Well, they did manage to get that contemptable moron in the Whitehouse elected.Wow. They must be really powerful to have gotten Lee to vote for him (twice) too. So does that mean the Lee is also a “religious fundamentalist dickhead”?
Ya, the bill McCain is drafting.
The post wasn’t about a bill but was about McCain vs Gulliani. Next time specify.
As for the bill, ISPs are already monitoring your traffic whether you know it or not. I know, I’ve worked for a few. Because they are a private company, they don’t need a search warrant and are not subject to the Fourth Amendment. But, if this bill passes, then the ISP becomes an agent of the government and would then require a search warrant (under the Fourth).
The only potential issue I see is that you, the subscriber, do not own the line that is transmitting and receiving data. That belongs to a combination of the internet backbone (eg - Level3), the ISP (eg - Earthlink), and the phone company (eg - SBC). The bill only deals with the ISP, and it is likely that they only own the DSLAM or other routing equipment that is between the backbone and the CLEC (phone company). Is it illegal to monitor their own equipment and the traffic that passes through it? Obviously not, they own it.
Frankly, I would see the bill as a violation of the Fourth Amendment and would not approve of it’s passage. But it will take a lawyer well versed in Constitutional Law to determine whether it is constitutional or not.
Dude, I’m almost laughing here. Christians persecuted in the US? I’m done.
I don’t particularly care if you believe it or not. The facts speak for themselves. There are thousands of cases like the ones I sited above.
You are wrong but I’ll give you some time to come up with links to support your claim. Go ahead.
What? I’m wrong because you say so? Nice try. I feel no need to prove a point that is obvious to anyone who has actually read the personal (and many professional) writtings of our Founding Fathers.
Am I correct in this instance of the ‘victim card’ statement?
Fogive me, but that certainly looks like you defending Huck when Huck is trying to deny any credit to Christianity.
Right, but you have been blinded by the light of the noodle my friend, because this is what I ‘said’:
No, icon. I just had to laugh a little there when you started to lay it on thick and sappy, and wanted to add a little more sarcasm on top of it.
that’s not defending huck, that’s directed squarely at you. you thought you were doing a victory lap and decided to pull the curtains back and expose your REAL point of view on the matter. Sneaky, I thought, but I couldn’t help but point it out. fun trick to lump me in with the schmuck as a tactic. Funny, but not really true. Perhaps a lie, even.
Actually the three quotes you provide aren’t even relative to each other, as it pertains to my involvement in them. spin, spin, spin, my little dervish.
don’t get too dizzy though.
talk about wasted bandwidth.... jesss…
it’s a lie. I never said it offended me.
Uh, I use the word “seems”, Manwhore. I didn’t say it did offend you, but that it seems to offend you.
(since “substantial” seems to offend you)
You do see the word “seems”, don’t you???
Lie. Here’s what you said about this quote:
The reason I invoked “victim card” is simply because I suspected that you would label me a “victim” of your underserved accusations. Had nothing to do with RoadKnight directly, just had to do with your invoking “victim card” in the past when your opponent viewed himself wronged in some way.
So, you see, no “lies”.
Misunderstandings yes, I plead guilty. But lies??!?
No, lies are deliberate, and don’t add to the discussion. We are having a difficult enough time with misunderstandings, and lies only make things worse.
Accusations of lies don’t help, either.
that’s not defending huck, that’s directed squarely at you
But you used what I said to Huck to justify it. That still seems to be a defense of Huck.
Uh, I use the word “seems”, Manwhore. I didn’t say it did offend you, but that it seems to offend you.
No, it’s an accusation. Fling shit at the wall and see what sticks right?
The reason I invoked “victim card” is simply because I suspected that you would label me a “victim” of your underserved accusations. Had nothing to do with RoadKnight directly, just had to do with your invoking “victim card” in the past when your opponent viewed himself wronged in some way.
sounds like yor trying to slither out of the corner, but i’ll take it for what it is. the exact verbage you used and the fact that it exists in this thread are a pretty strong case for you trying to use it against me in your support, but whatever.
The reason I invoked “victim card” is simply because I suspected that you would label me a “victim” of your underserved accusations. Had nothing to do with RoadKnight directly, just had to do with your invoking “victim card” in the past when your opponent viewed himself wronged in some way.
So, you see, no “lies”.
Misunderstandings yes, I plead guilty. But lies??!?
Well, then. It certainly seems like a christian liar capable of lying as a way of slander. But it’s just a misunderstanding, not an accusation of you being a slanderous liar.
it’s all cleared up.
No, it’s an accusation.
It’s an expression of opinion. Get over yourself.
Fling shit at the wall and see what sticks right?
Wrong. You do seem convinced that that’s the only way people can “discuss”, though, especially when those people are “Christians"…
And look up the word “seem” sometime.
sounds like yor trying to slither out of the corner, but i’ll take it for what it is
I was simply trying to head you off at the pass.
It certainly seems like a christian liar capable of lying as a way of slander. But it’s just a misunderstanding, not an accusation of you being a slanderous liar.
When you call me a liar, multiple times, without using the word “seems”, it is an accusation.
Geez, talk about “slithering"…
capable of lying as a way of slander.
Erm… when it’s written down, it’s libel, not slander.
Carry on…
Are we gonna have to separate you two? Come on!
The first two clauses, the part forbiding Big Brother from telling me how to worship the God of my choice. That implicitly recognizes that some kind of God exists, even if the recognition is passive.
I’m gonna have to say that it implies no such thing. It specifically states “religion”, not “God”, gods, goddess or anything about a deity. Religion can take many forms. The COTUS doesn’t restrict “religion” to only those with one deity or more. Atheism?
I don’t think Atheism can be counted as a religion, GripeBoy. It is unique in that it does not need the leap of faith all other religions require.
I doubt if the writers of the Constitution really thought in the terms we’re discussing though. They were probably just trying to prevent the persecution seen previously.
Are we gonna have to separate you two? Come on!
No, it SEEMS icon enjoys the thrill of it as much as it SEEMS that I do.... :)
there’s nothing like a good ‘ole mud slinging.
I’m gonna have to say that it implies no such thing. It specifically states “religion”, not “God”, gods, goddess or anything about a deity. Religion can take many forms. The COTUS doesn’t restrict “religion” to only those with one deity or more. Atheism?
Well, much like translation, interpretation can get extremely subjective. This is the classic Id debate, though. A thre or four pronged tangent designed to debate something otherwise dismissed as common knowledge.
I don’t think Atheism can be counted as a religion, GripeBoy. It is unique in that it does not need the leap of faith all other religions require.
A ‘faith’ IMO is an acknowledgement of a higher power, and if read correctly Gripe had it right. Even that is left out of the verbage. Religion could mean a myriad of things. It could be the religion of going to the gym.
I don’t think Atheism can be counted as a religion, GripeBoy.
So then it isn’t protected by the “religion” part of the first ammendment?
No, I think it qualifies. It’s commonly listed as a option when designating one’s religion. It’s generally recognized as such. It’s a belief system. Religion doesn’t necessarily require faith in a deity.
I am confident that everyone is rather sick of this thread, so I will leave with a bit of actual evidence that supports (and more clearly elucidates) my position. I was unable to find specific citations to support the notion that the Constitution recognizes a power higher than itself in the First Amendment, so I hereby concede that particular point. However, my main point is supported by this Library of Congress online exhibit, which discusses the roles played by religion in the settling of the British North American colonies, American Revolution and founding of the American Republic.
Flame away…
Next entry: Whatever It Takes II
Previous entry: The View From Overseas
Server Drive
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 4396
Total Logged in members: 4
Total guests: 41
Total anonymous users: 0
chrisbg99,
Miguelito,
Mississippi Yankee,
Technomad,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
I got an idea!
(33 total, Last @ 03:56)
HARLEY: Harley, Join Date August 30, 2004 06:47 AM That is almost 6 years. , you haven't been paying attention.
A Done Deal?
(4 total, Last @ 02:30)
H. Ratliff: Actually, re-reading my comment I don't know if I was very clear. I meant to say that I wonder if CBO scoring will start to become less important when future legislation is being debated. Obviously using budgeting gimmicks to game the system isn't new... Neither is outright lying. That said,…
I got an idea!
(33 total, Last @ 01:31)
AlexinCT: Read it again, perhaps more slowly this time, and you may see the sarcasm. Just wanted to make sure nobody took it as advice instead of just another jab at dog's expense working_man.
I got an idea!
(33 total, Last @ 01:28)
working_man: No matter how low your opinions is of someone, and believe me, mine of dog can’t go much lower - barring them actually trying to do something nasty to you personally - something like this is uncalled for working_man. And for the record, I agree with everything else you said.…
A Done Deal?
(4 total, Last @ 01:21)
Hal_10000: I wonder if after this disaster the CBO scoring will even mean anything. What’s the point? No it won't. That a point I should have mentioned. The Democrats will get their rosy projections, pass the bill, claim they've reduced the deficit and then proceed to "fix" the bill with all…
Last 30 Comments
I agree, at this point Rudy is the only possibility that would get me out to vote. As for VP, not sure on that one, Newt would be good.