Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: stefferweffer on January 06, 2011, 01:46:03 PM
-
LOL. I thought it was going to be "search for new administration officials". I could say more, but I'll stop there :)
-
"Must be blocked by Republicans"
-
"Must be blocked by Republicans"
I think you mean "May only block Republicans."
-
No, anytime he or the Dems attempted to get anything done in the past two years, the Republicans blocked it.
Then again, this thread assumes that politicians are inherently good or evil.
-
I'd say that Obama would also band to a socialist, then Force ur Opponent to discard a Good NT Card or Dominant from Hand. If Christian Nation is played discard and Remove this card from the game.
-
I should give him a Taunt ability.
-
Yea, that too, but Banding to a Socialist would be funny.
-
I'd say that Obama would also band to a socialist, then Force ur Opponent to discard a Good NT Card or Dominant from Hand. If Christian Nation is played discard and Remove this card from the game.
Ah, I see we aren't basing this card on reality. Ever read Romans 13?
-
Actually u've probally just been watching only the biased media, which want to believe that he's one of the best people in history.
-
We know, but it's fun to think what the card might actually do.
Fun for some, but completely offensive to others. Remember that not everyone on this forum is a big fan of Fox News and Glenn Beck.
-
I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck, he's not a Christian! I listen to Christian News and Talk programs, and besides that's what I know.
-
No, anytime he or the Dems attempted to get anything done in the past two years, the Republicans blocked it.
How is that possible? The Republicans had a minority in both houses for the last 2 years. The Democrats in the house of Reps had a majority, and they got some stuff done. The Americans didn't like what they did, and voted them out of office.
For the next 2 years, there will be a better balance in the legislature. That way they can honestly blame each other if nothing gets done. But for their actions in the past two years, the democrats are without excuse.
-
Actually u've probally just been watching only the biased media, which want to believe that he's one of the best people in history.
Actually, I don't watch TV. Except for Dr. Who, Firefly, and a select few shows, which I watch without ads. The only televised political correspondence I watch is Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.
Obama has done some great things, including giving hope to a good portion of hopeless people. That's not to say he's the best president ever, but he's certainly not deserving of the "socialist" label and an EC card.
And since when was socialism bad? Socialism, Communism and Capitalism are all just economic theories.
Instaposted: Bryon, the minority has plenty of ways to delay things. The appointment of a judge can be held up anonymously and indefinably by only one congressman. The senate also has loads of procedures to even get a bill voted on, all of which can be filibustered.
But for their actions in the past two years, the democrats are without excuse.
155 Republicans voted against a funded bill to provide the heroes of 9/11 with healthcare. Excuse?
-
How is that possible? The Republicans had a minority in both houses for the last 2 years. The Democrats in the house of Reps had a majority, and they got some stuff done. The Americans didn't like what they did, and voted them out of office.
Please don't get me started. The Republicans are spreading their liberal abuse with the filibuster. I don't like Obama's administration, but I'm absolutely disgusted by the Republican Party's actions, mostly because they still claim to be conservative. THE DEMONCRATS (LOL GETTIT?) DON'T HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY.
That being said, I don't like Obama. He is a coward. What was the polling, 80% of the people wanted middle but not higher tax extensions? And he folded? Pathetic.
Also, SOCIALISM FTW! Jesus wasn't a capitalist. Your family is socialist.
-
Please take this to Open Discussion. Sometimes I wonder if we have more debates on the New Card Ideas than over there.
-
Please take this to Open Discussion. Sometimes I wonder if we have more debates on the New Card Ideas than over there.
Cool card idea, but if you don't want to open a can of worms, be careful what you title your threads. :)
-
It wasn't intending to get many posts, but I also wasn't intending for a political debate to break out. Open Discussion is really the better place for that.
-
It wasn't intending to get many posts, but I also wasn't intending for a political debate to break out.
Really? How long have you been on this forum? :P
-
Also, SOCIALISM FTW! Jesus wasn't a capitalist. Your family is socialist.
How is the Goverment taking the Church's job good?(Only quoting what I'm referring to)
-
I fail to see how the government is taking the Church's job.
-
Caring for the poor and homeless(Wellfare which is a socialist policy) That job is for the Church not the goverment. Also if you wish to debate via pms I would be happy to change to that.
-
I changed my mind. Please, carry on!
-
He should be 0/0 instead of 1/1.
-
Guys, that isnt obama. PULEEZ
-
He should be 0/0 instead of 1/1.
Oholibamah is a woman. She was Esau's wife...
-
He should be 0/0 instead of 1/1.
Oholibamah is a woman. She was Esau's wife...
My point exactly.
-
Caring for the poor and homeless(Wellfare which is a socialist policy) That job is for the Church not the goverment. Also if you wish to debate via pms I would be happy to change to that.
The private Charity sector can't. They don't have enough money, man power, or will. Look at which countries have the largest percentage of poverties and where the most citizens only have access to subpar living conditions, food, water, etc: they're all relatively poor (whether you look at it by GDP or GDP per capita) countries wherein the government is unable to provide welfare. Why hasn't the private sector stepped up and saved them? It can't.
You may attribute some, or most, of it to a geographical difference. Keep in mind, however, that the United States is one of the least charitable developed nations per capita.
-
Another reason people poor and on welfare is also because they don't work(Before you bring up the ecomy it was that way before the ecomey took a dive) Welfare at it's best is the Goverment wasting money on lazy people. They can find work even if it's only five bucks a day which is MUCH better than sitting around not doing anything. So if more people tried working even for small amounts of money the church could suport more poor seeing as some of them would have SOME money that the Goverment didn't give them. Also if you look at the Roman REPUBLIC(Read not empire) it failed AFTER they started providing Welfare.
-
Another reason people poor and on welfare is also because they don't work
Many people can't work. I'm not referring to free rides, as they're an unfortunate and unavoidable product of the system.
(Before you bring up the ecomy it was that way before the ecomey took a dive)
L
Welfare at it's best is the Goverment wasting money on lazy people. They can find work even if it's only five bucks a day which is MUCH better than sitting around not doing anything. So if more people tried working even for small amounts of money the church could suport more poor seeing as some of them would have SOME money that the Goverment didn't give them.
I'm not asking anyone not to work. But it is unfair to expect someone unable to work to work. Also, it is naive at best to assume working odd jobs could sustain them.
Also if you look at the Roman REPUBLIC(Read not empire) it failed AFTER they started providing Welfare.
No. The Roman REPUBLIC became the EMPIRE after leaders such as MARIUS AND SALA exerted general power and was it fully transformed by CEASAR, but met minor problems (ie: Brutus, whom should be considered a hero...). The empire was then truly accepted under AUGUSTUS.
-
Ooooh this is frightfully delicious! Too bad I wasn't here earlier or I would have declared the thread now about Doctor Who, and a Doctor Who thread (or a train thread, LOVE those!) would be nice.
I'm not going to join this argument as it's already gotten emotional and therefore can no longer be productive. Now it's just fun to watch B)
-
Also, I wouldn't work for $5 a day. That's an insult.
A living wage comes to $10 or so an hour (depends on exactly where you live). Minimum wage is $7.25, federally.
So if I work a normal, eight hour day, I'm going to be $22 short of what it'll take to stay alive. Why even work under these conditions?
Nice high horse there Pol.
-
I'll come down when the parade is finished.
-
I don't like polotics.
-
I just wish Stephen or Doug was here to post about how badmouthing the president gives aid and comfort to the enemy
-
First of all, I never said that, you seem to have a penchant for taking whatever you think is the lolfauxnews meme of the day and inserting it into my mouth.
Second of all, if there's something in this thread referring to military operations, I must have missed it.
-
Really,
I was sure you would have remembered Doug's article about the KGB agent
-
In point of fact I do not, but I'm not sure what Doug supposedly wrote that's supposedly related to "badmouthing the president" has anything to do with claiming I would say (and thus, suggesting I have previously said) something as vague and nonsensical as that.
-
In point of fact I do not, but I'm not sure what Doug supposedly wrote that's supposedly related to "badmouthing the president" has anything to do with claiming I would say (and thus, suggesting I have previously said) something as vague and nonsensical as that.
Just to refresh your memory... Here is the first paragraph from the Wall Street Journal editorial by a former KGB agent that Doug posted approvingly back in August of 2007.
Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler–as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.
When I noted that the basic claim that dissent is unpatriotic is essentially unamerican, you disagreed vehemently and argued strongly for the point of view that Pacepa espoused. We then got sidetracked when you decided to make the ludicrous claim that conservatives had never called honest dissent against President Bush and his policies treasonous.
I guess my question to all the folks on these boards--such as yourself--who slammed me for slamming Doug's original post approving of this tripe believe that those who are now criticizing President Obama are "sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism?" Or is it only anti-American to disagree with presidents who happen to be Republicans?
The Wall Street Journal no longer has the original editorial archived, but it was way popular and mentioned prominently in right-leaning blogs back in its day. I've found it on several, and if anyone wants to dive into the muck I've left enough clues that you can find the original op-ed in its entirety.
-
I just hope that we all, myself included, defend our Lord's name and our faith with the same level of fervor that we do our political beliefs.
-
I guess my question to all the folks on these boards--such as yourself--who slammed me for slamming Doug's original post approving of this tripe believe that those who are now criticizing President Obama are "sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism?" Or is it only anti-American to disagree with presidents who happen to be Republicans?
Rush Limbaugh said that his purpose was "to make the Obama presidency fail". That is anti-American, and borders on treason. Making an accurate comment on a politician's actions is another matter entirely. "I don't like how Bush handled the post 9/11 era".
It's an issue on both sides of the isle. Some say Obama wasn't born in the US, and others say Sarah Palin isn't Trig's mother, but grandmother.
-
How is Rush Limbaugh stating that he hopes the UnAmerican and treasonous? (note: I don't agree with his statement)
It is unChristian to not work for $5 dollars a day - Paul often chastises those who don't work and commands that Christians not only work but work joyfully.
Random lightningrod of the day: Heaven seems kinda like socialism.
-
When I noted that the basic claim that dissent is unpatriotic is essentially unamerican, you disagreed vehemently and argued strongly for the point of view that Pacepa espoused.
Since you have a pretty long history of either misunderstanding or misconstruing some of the things I say, can you link me to my exact words so we can examine the truth of the matter and not only the lens through which you recall it?
We then got sidetracked when you decided to make the ludicrous claim that conservatives had never called honest dissent against President Bush and his policies treasonous.
I think we're again confusing the general with the specific. I'm pretty careful about avoiding absolutes, which causes me to question the large number of absolutes you ascribe to me here: that zero conservatives criticized any honest dissent zero times.
Or is it only anti-American to disagree with presidents who happen to be Republicans?
I did not spend long months defending criticism of John Kerry's war record to be accused now of assigning "Americanism" on the basis of party affiliation. Especially when I have had none for nearly a decade and am reasonably certain I've mentioned that at least one time prior.
Random lightningrod of the day: Heaven seems kinda like socialism.
Depends on how you define it. As an economic theory, it's a non-starter, since there's no economy in Heaven. As a political theory, it's commonly (in America) associated with nationalization of industry as a means of establishing an egalitarian state. Since the criticism of socialism on earth is based on people depriving other people of liberties by force of law in order to redistribute to people without their own means, that also doesn't apply in Heaven, because unlike on earth among humans, God IS a supreme authority to whom all of our liberties and all of our resources actually belong. So He quite literally can do whatever He wants with us with impunity.
On the other hand, if it's a co-operative commune like the apostles lived in the first century, that's just people helping people, and there's no shame at all in saying Heaven is like that.
-
Disagreement is not Anti-American, Obama is just a man after all and you can disagree with me but your saying it's anti-American to disagree with the president who after all is a man, not a supreme unhuman overlord.
-
Just for the record, Jesus sure didn't pull many punches when He spoke about the political and religious leaders of His day. He once called Herod "that fox", and Matthew 23 is just one example of the multiple times He chastised the scribes and Pharisees. Now we know from 1 Peter that He did not "revile" His enemies even when He was "reviled" by them, but no one can deny that Jesus had many very public and very negative things to say about those individuals. John the baptist was beheaded because of his public outcry against Herod's adulterous marriage. Was John wrong to do this?
We are told as Christians to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather to "expose them". We are also told to pray for those in authority and to obey them, even the stupid laws, up to the point that they do not violate God's laws (at which point "we must obey God rather than men"). But to say that we cannot vehemently point out the sins of our leaders sure seems to violate the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so many other bible "heroes" from both testaments.
-
[\Quote from: Red on January 06, 2011, 03:11:12 PM
[\Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on January 06, 2011, 02:08:05 PM
Also, SOCIALISM FTW! Jesus wasn't a capitalist. Your family is socialist. [\quote]
How is the Goverment taking the Church's job good?(Only quoting what I'm referring to)
[/quote]
You do not know what a socialist is!
Plz, also read Deuteronomy, that is aboslute Capitalism, Communists and Socialists hate God, Jesus and the Church. Read their writings!
-
Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. One coudl argue heaven is Communism because sin is removed from the equation and thus Communism can succeed (exception being clearly that Christ is the Lord, rather than all being equal).
Communism does not by necessity hate God. You only think that way because the communist states (which weren't communist btw) that have existed have hated God.
Absolute Capitalism would be a terrible system. Do you not realize that Capitalism is a product of the broken human state? It is the most successful economic system because it assumes that everyone will work based upon the sin that is inside them.
-
My turn. I personally am not happy with either the Republicans or the Democrats or even the entire American political system the way it has become. However, the American political system reminds me of the United Nations in the fact that we ARE the United States, which, like individual nations, have differing opinions on just about every issue. Combine that with the fact that each state is then represented by multiple individuals, who also have their own opinions, yet often times are controlled more by their own agenda (themselves) rather than what they honestly think is best for our country... That basically leads to all these arguments and debates which rarely seem productive because one minute there are enough yeses and the next minute their screaming bloody murder for the repealing of something that was voted on 8 months prior because a few more people are now in positions of majority. It's all entertaining really, but that's just how I see it: A zoo full of primates fighting over who has control of the most feces-covered banana peels. <-- that is my personal opinion of politics.
My professional view, however, is based on my current occupation: A member of the United States Military. I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United states from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. No one in this country is excusable from their actions, not even the President. Yes, he is my ultimate earthly boss and I will respect him for that. However, should he (Any President) be deemed an enemy of the United States, no threat of "Treason" would ever change my mind. While President Obama may not be doing the best job that I think he could be doing, there is no visible reason to think he is bringing direct harm to the United States.
As far as wanting his presidency to fail, I don't see that as treasonous because although he doesn't appear to be directly harming the nation, he is definitely skewing the world's opinion of our nation and he is racking up an increasingly large debt on items that aren't, shall we say, immediately pressing. So, if he fails to complete his objectives, it could be a good thing.
Now as far as the United States' "poor," they are richer than a good majority of the world, so I don't think we have anything to fear there.
-C_S
-
Actually, God gave that system to the Isrealites as one of the laws they had to obey, It's in Deutronomy, Socialism was made by curruptted man to attempt to take God out of the picture.
In Heaven, there is nothing of the sort because there is no Economic system, everything anyone there would want is there. No one is taking from someone to give to someone else. Socialism is theft, It states that we should take what those that worked for their money, and give it to the poor, by force. That is wrong, and it makes no one want to work so the government will have to force us to. I insist that u read the Communist Manifesto and Karl Marx's writings, and u will learn what they truly want.
And Obama is a Socialist because what the Socialists said was the way to bring America to it's knees, was Buy up major companies so that the gov owns them, Implement Hate Crimes, Healthcare and Allow Gays into their Millitary. In essence, They control UR Health, they choose who lives and who dies, and then destabilization of our Millitary because of Sodomy, Thats what God Calls them.
I hope God will open UR eyes to the truth.
-
there is no visible reason to think he is bringing direct harm to the United States.
lol wut
-
My turn. I personally am not happy with either the Republicans or the Democrats or even the entire American political system the way it has become. However, the American political system reminds me of the United Nations in the fact that we ARE the United States, which, like individual nations, have differing opinions on just about every issue. Combine that with the fact that each state is then represented by multiple individuals, who also have their own opinions, yet often times are controlled more by their own agenda (themselves) rather than what they honestly think is best for our country... That basically leads to all these arguments and debates which rarely seem productive because one minute there are enough yeses and the next minute their screaming bloody murder for the repealing of something that was voted on 8 months prior because a few more people are now in positions of majority. It's all entertaining really, but that's just how I see it: A zoo full of primates fighting over who has control of the most feces-covered banana peels. <-- that is my personal opinion of politics.
I quite argree w/ u on this, except that Healthcare was not wanted by an overwhelming Majority. But yes, they are supposed to be their to represent the STATES, not themselves. I'd hope that we could find people in office that could care more about their true reason of being there instead of the lobbyists, their back pocket and their agenda.
-
.....I shouldn't respond to such ludicrous claims, but I will anyway because I am an idiot. I take full repsonsibility for any further conversation that goes on between myself and megamanlan.
That's fine that God gave capitalism to the Israelites, but we are not the Israelites. That is civil law that no longer is binding to any of humankind after Christ. If you want to say that this passage proves that Capitalism is the best system, I don't disagree with you. However, I just want you to recognize that Capitalism works the best because it assumes that everyone will work in their own interests - also known as be greedy and follow sin nature. Communism tries to assume that everyone will work in the best interests of another person. That is why it fails in the world. In heaven however, it would be perfect and successful. Judging from what little we know about heaven, one could easily make the arguement that Heaven is a communist area ruled by Christ.
You need to cite every single thing you said about Obama.
1. He isn't buying up major corporations. He has instituted welfare-like handouts to major corporations. But so did Bush, and I bet you like him, don't you?
2. What does implement hate crimes even mean?
3. While I disagree with healthcare, I appreciate his desire to aid the less fortunate in this country who can not afford healthcare because capatlism has driven the cost so high. Unfortunatley, his plan would not work.
4. Allowing gays into the military does nothing. The fact you even bring this up is just blatant hate.
-
there is no visible reason to think he is bringing direct harm to the United States.
lol wut
I also agree, what he has done in the last 2 yrs, is bringing harm. Several doctors say that if an when Healthcare begins to work, they will stop practicing their trade. (I saw a poll that said about 60% say that)
Quite the same w/ the military.
-
You still refuse to cite any of your outlandish claims.
-
For someone to compare the "Communism" of Acts 4 to present day Communism seems silly to me for one primary reason - one was entered into voluntarily and one is forced. The early Jerusalem church (before Stephen's martyrdom) succeeded so well in meeting the needs of its members because they CHOSE to help each other and "have all things in common." And even the apostles were not "forcing" this on anyone. Peter told Ananias that before they sold their property it was theirs to do with as they pleased, and after it was sold, the money was STILL theirs to do with as they pleased. In other words, those Christians that wanted to "opt out" of the "all things in common" trend were free to do so. It was the lying about the amount that condemned Ananias and Sapphira, not that they might not have given enough. Peter says that they did not HAVE to give any!
But in Communist nations today, where the "share the wealth and make everyone equal" mantra is tried, you don't have a choice to "opt out" (short of fleeing the country). History seems to show that wherever NON-CHRISTIANS try communism it leads to heartache, and/or slothfulness, and/or oppression. So short of a "Christian commune" patterned after the Jerusalem church, I fail to see how any government on this earth can achieve for its people what God did for that church in the book of Acts. And this is because 1) People are inherently selfish, and 2) "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
As for statements like Rush's famous "I hope he fails", I can see myself one day saying that about a president or candidate. If there were ever a candidate who ran on a platform saying "If I'm elected, I will pass laws forbidding the teaching of the bible, I will pass laws allowing same sex marriages (despite Jesus saying "man and wife"), and I will pass laws to force women to have abortions if we deem that they already have enough children (as is done in China).", OF COURSE you will hear me saying "I hope he fails!" Am I supposed to hope that he gets what he wants just because he got elected president?
-
I agree with most of that post, but why the addendum about allowing homosexual marriages? Do you have a problem with a secular government affirming the "love" of any two persons? Homosexual marriage being immoral is a church issue, not a state issue.
-
Oholibamah
1/1 Brown
Search deck for an Edomite. May band to Esau.
"These are the sons of Oholibamah, Esau's wife: the chiefs Jeush, Jalam, and Korah; these are the chiefs born of Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, Esau's wife." Genesis 36:18
cool card idea. id like to see an edomite theme. funny name lol
-
Considering the precedent of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the laws that they received from God, and then Romans 13 stating that government's purpose is for the punishment of evildoers (rather than the promotion of it), YES, I have a problem with a government that would encourage same sex marriages. Isaiah says "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil." And what is ANY law of human government, if not a judgment on the "morality", the inherent rightness or wrongness, of a given activity?
-
Considering the precedent of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the laws that they received from God, and then Romans 13 stating that government's purpose is for the punishment of evildoers (rather than the promotion of it), YES, I have a problem with a government that would encourage same sex marriages. Isaiah says "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil."
Hey, finally someone who has a decent argument about it. I'm cool with that. I personally don't think the government should sanction marriages at all, so the issue is somewhat moot to me.
-
there is no visible reason to think he is bringing direct harm to the United States.
lol wut
I also agree, what he has done in the last 2 yrs, is bringing harm. Several doctors say that if an when Healthcare begins to work, they will stop practicing their trade. (I saw a poll that said about 60% say that)
Quite the same w/ the military.
What he has done is not direct harm. We are not currently being attacked by another country/entity as a direct result of his choices. Maybe in the long run, but that's somewhat of a possibility, not a guarantee.
-C_S
-
Considering the precedent of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the laws that they received from God, and then Romans 13 stating that government's purpose is for the punishment of evildoers (rather than the promotion of it), YES, I have a problem with a government that would encourage same sex marriages. Isaiah says "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil."
Unfortunately banning same sex marriage is against the constitution (well the bill of rights actually), don't believe me?
Then let's look at the facts:
Article III
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Which according to the supreme court means that neither the federal government nor a state "can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."*
Confused on how this applies to gay marriage?
Well your evidence for opposing same-sex marriage is "the Bible says so", unfortunately the government is not allowed to make laws aiding or supporting the beliefs of one (or multiple) religions therefore it cannot ban gay marriage without another good reason, which (to my knowledge) there isn't
*http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/meaning_of_establishment.htm
-
I quite argree w/ u on this, except that Healthcare was not wanted by an overwhelming Majority.
Bush wasn't wanted by even a normal majority, yet he got in. Heathcare reform is needed in the US today. [SOURCE: Sicko]
-
The new republican House is already thinking about modifying the health care.
-
All while whining that they don't get their own government health care soon enough.
-
They work for the government. That is employer-based health insurance just like any other. That is simply not a valid comparison.
-
I quite argree w/ u on this, except that Healthcare was not wanted by an overwhelming Majority.
Bush wasn't wanted by even a normal majority, yet he got in. Heathcare reform is needed in the US today. [SOURCE: Sicko]
Just don't model it after Canada, ok?
-C_S
-
which aid one religion
Good thing Muslims are also against it. Two religions, BAM!
Also, Sicko as a source rofl.
-
Considering the precedent of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the laws that they received from God, and then Romans 13 stating that government's purpose is for the punishment of evildoers (rather than the promotion of it), YES, I have a problem with a government that would encourage same sex marriages. Isaiah says "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil."
Unfortunately banning same sex marriage is against the constitution (well the bill of rights actually), don't believe me?
Then let's look at the facts:
Article III
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Which according to the supreme court means that neither the federal government nor a state "can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."*
Confused on how this applies to gay marriage?
Well your evidence for opposing same-sex marriage is "the Bible says so", unfortunately the government is not allowed to make laws aiding or supporting the beliefs of one (or multiple) religions therefore it cannot ban gay marriage without another good reason, which (to my knowledge) there isn't
*http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/meaning_of_establishment.htm
All very interesting points, but I did not say that banning gay marriage would be constitutional. I said it would be the right thing to do considering God's purpose for government. If that means ammending the constitution to make it happen then so be it. The role of government, as defined by Romans 13, is not to obey the US Consitution. That would be men obeying other men. The purpose of governement is to promote good and punish evil. And history (and the bible) shows us that once a governement stops doing this, its days of power and splendor are limited.
As an aside, isn't "humanism" a religion? I'm quite content to leave things as they are too, but it sure seems to me that a politician that campaigns on "I will legalize same sex marriages by means of a national law" (which was the example I gave), would be promoting a religion.
-
1. Humanism is a philosophy, not a religion
2. How is legalizing gay marriage promoting a religion?
3. I must have missed the part where it's the government's job to enforce religious laws
-
Also, Sicko as a source rofl.
Whoops, I must have missed the part where you quoted a reliable source disproving mine.
-
LOL at this being a "New Card Ideas" thread. You guys will throw political banter wherever you can sneak it in. Excuse me while I laugh at y'all. :D
-
The public overwhelmingly supports public health care option.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html)
Also, I am in belief that if gay marriage isn't allowed the constitution needs to be amended. Get rid of the first amendment, the bill of rights doesn't really do anything these days anyway (except provide a nice tourist destination). The establishment clause implies there be a separation of the church and state, and conforming to biblical standards doesn't meet that. Keep in mind that the important founding fathers weren't Christian.
-
FWIW, although I believe gay marriage is wrong, Sauce has a point that it is (technically) unconstitutional, and the Government should technically allow it.
Then again, the Government should technically allow psychopaths.
-
Whoops, I must have missed the part where you quoted a reliable source disproving mine.
You cited Michael Moore, you're already behind the eight ball. Also, I'm not sure exactly what fact you "sourced" in saying so. To be honest, the inclusion seemed kind of random.
Keep in mind that the important founding fathers weren't Christian.
This is an odd statement since the idea of "importance" is pretty subjective, and I'm certain the guys who were sitting there founding a new nation considered it important that they were there. Also, the actual number is considerably small, but a lot of people like to lean on Franklin, diminish Jefferson's faith, and neglect to mention that Paine's deist writings came later in his life, after the Constitutional Conventions, and for which he was eventually ostracized by many of his friends.
-
Jefferson's "Life and Morals" argues no theology. It is simply his edited version of the Gospels. He literally cut out the virgin birth, miracle stories, claims to Jesus' divinity and the resurrection.
Doesn't look like Jefferson had much faith to begin with ::)
-
3. I must have missed the part where it's the government's job to enforce religious laws
Religious laws=morality. There is no morality without religion. Laws are based around morality (hence why I can't kill you. Which I should totally be able to do, the government is restricting my rights. I can do what I want), therefore the government essentially enforces religious law.
-
You still refuse to cite any of your outlandish claims.
I will cite my evidence, but u need to stop listening to all of the biased media u listen to, if u listened to some Christian news programs that actually will report this type of stuff, instead of just saying how good he his, and refuse to actually say anything on how this could harm us.
Also only four of the founders were not Christians, all I have to say is READ THEIR WRITINGS! and stop being fooled by those who are trying to re-write history to make us think that we are not a Christian Nation.
-
The Government was created by God to enforce what God commands, but flawed man keeps on coruppting and perverting it to where the gov. Becomes our God, instead of being Gods enforcement.
-
You still refuse to cite any of your outlandish claims.
I will cite my evidence, but u need to stop listening to all of the biased media u listen to, if u listened to some Christian news programs that actually will report this type of stuff, instead of just saying how good he his, and refuse to actually say anything on how this could harm us.
Also only four of the founders were not Christians, all I have to say is READ THEIR WRITINGS! and stop being fooled by those who are trying to re-write history to make us think that we are not a Christian Nation.
A Christian news source is simply a source with a bias you agree with. Personally I try to find news on important stories from many different viewpoints, gather the commonalities, and synthesize the rest as much as possible in order to try to get closer to the truth of the news story.
America is not a Christian nation. It is a nation founded by (debateably) Christian men. You realize that it is immoral to rebel against a government unless it is breaking God's law, do you not? How was Britain breaking God's laws?
For the second time, I don't think Obama is good. I would not have chosen him to be our president last election (nor would I have chosen McCain). But the fact is that he is our president, and I will respect him as such, and not state the sort of nonsense you are spouting. He is not a socialist. He is merely a do nothing.
Also, I am fairly confident mroe than 4 founders were not Christians. I demand a cite to support your claim. Additionally, when was church attendence by decade (by percentage of populace) in America the lowest? According the my history teacher (I went to a reformed presyterian school), it was the lowest in 1790s. Sounds like the 1790s weren't that bastion of Christendom you think they were.
-
3. I must have missed the part where it's the government's job to enforce religious laws
Religious laws=morality. There is no morality without religion. Laws are based around morality (hence why I can't kill you. Which I should totally be able to do, the government is restricting my rights. I can do what I want), therefore the government essentially enforces religious law.
The government's job is to protect the rights of it's citizens, you can't kill me because you would be violating my rights by doing so
-
Yes, but enforcement of those laws involves depriving people of liberties. Taxation of the populace deprives them of liberties. In effect, any authoritative action taken by the government comes at the expense of the people on whom it subsides. The question of governance, then, is how much power is appropriate for the government to take from its people in order to do what it does.
For the government truly to do nothing more than protect the rights of its citizens falls on one extreme end of the political-philosophical spectrum: libertarianism. It goes from there through conservatism (a limited but practical use of government), through liberal/progressivism (government as an activist force) to socialism (government managing all major aspects of society, particularly economy and production). So in all but a small percentage of people, the prevailing wisdom is that the government should be active in the lives of the citizens in SOME capacity beyond just policing violations.
-
You still refuse to cite any of your outlandish claims.
I will cite my evidence, but u need to stop listening to all of the biased media u listen to, if u listened to some Christian news programs that actually will report this type of stuff, instead of just saying how good he his, and refuse to actually say anything on how this could harm us.
Also only four of the founders were not Christians, all I have to say is READ THEIR WRITINGS! and stop being fooled by those who are trying to re-write history to make us think that we are not a Christian Nation.
A Christian news source is simply a source with a bias you agree with. Personally I try to find news on important stories from many different viewpoints, gather the commonalities, and synthesize the rest as much as possible in order to try to get closer to the truth of the news story.
America is not a Christian nation. It is a nation founded by (debateably) Christian men. You realize that it is immoral to rebel against a government unless it is breaking God's law, do you not? How was Britain breaking God's laws?
For the second time, I don't think Obama is good. I would not have chosen him to be our president last election (nor would I have chosen McCain). But the fact is that he is our president, and I will respect him as such, and not state the sort of nonsense you are spouting. He is not a socialist. He is merely a do nothing.
Also, I am fairly confident mroe than 4 founders were not Christians. I demand a cite to support your claim. Additionally, when was church attendence by decade (by percentage of populace) in America the lowest? According the my history teacher (I went to a reformed presyterian school), it was the lowest in 1790s. Sounds like the 1790s weren't that bastion of Christendom you think they were.
I Demand that u cite ur evidence! All of the Founders (except for 4) in their own writings declare Jesus Christ as their Lord, Savior and God. And if u Obviously have not read the Declaration of Independence, in there It shows exactly why they declared independence. I strongly suggest u read ur Bible and read the book 'For You they Signed' and then read their actual speeches and writings, Like Washingtons Farwell Address, and the records of our Constutional Congress, and learn from them. Not from those who wish to make us believe that our Nation that was founded on Christian Principles, was a secular nation founded by Diests, I pray that the Lord will open UR eyes to the truth in his word, and to not be fooled by the world.
-
Yes, but enforcement of those laws involves depriving people of liberties. Taxation of the populace deprives them of liberties. In effect, any authoritative action taken by the government comes at the expense of the people on whom it subsides. The question of governance, then, is how much power is appropriate for the government to take from its people in order to do what it does.
For the government truly to do nothing more than protect the rights of its citizens falls on one extreme end of the political-philosophical spectrum: libertarianism. It goes from there through conservatism (a limited but practical use of government), through liberal/progressivism (government as an activist force) to socialism (government managing all major aspects of society, particularly economy and production). So in all but a small percentage of people, the prevailing wisdom is that the government should be active in the lives of the citizens in SOME capacity beyond just policing violations.
I must Insist that all of you read the Declaration of Independance and The Constituation, The Gettesburg Address, and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, alone w/ Washington's Farewell Address.
-
I'm by no means an impartial observer, but you've been making much more crazy claims, with absolutely no citations. The Declaration of independence and the book are good, but at least try to provide something we can read in a reasonable amount of time.
-
1. Humanism is a philosophy, not a religion
2. How is legalizing gay marriage promoting a religion?
3. I must have missed the part where it's the government's job to enforce religious laws
Can you explain why humanists and their philosophy are not "religious"? I'd be very interested to hear how you decide where a philosophy stops being a philosophy and becomes a religion instead. You do remember that in Acts 17 Paul is speaking to the Epicurean philosophers of Athens and calls them "very religious", right?
I never said it is the government's job to enforce religious laws. Romans 13 doesn't state that either. Please stop misquoting and actually listen to what is being said. The bible states that government's purpose, and the goal of a good ruler, is to promote good and punish evil. The definitions of what is good and evil do not come from "a religion", a church, or a denomination. They come from our Creator, and are found in His word. The reason we will not reach agreement though is because what humanists believe the purpose of government is will never be the same as what the bible states.
-
I must Insist that all of you read the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, The Gettysburg Address, and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, alone w/ Washington's Farewell Address.
Go ahead read the constitution and the bill of rights while your at it and unless the US was founded in the 1860's Lincoln and the Gettysburg address have nothing to do with this
. Not from those who wish to make us believe that our Nation that was founded on Christian Principles, was a secular nation founded by Diests, I pray that the Lord will open UR eyes to the truth in his word, and to not be fooled by the world.
It's brainwashing when liberals do it, but christian values when conservatives do it
1. Humanism is a philosophy, not a religion
2. How is legalizing gay marriage promoting a religion?
3. I must have missed the part where it's the government's job to enforce religious laws
Can you explain why humanists and their philosophy are not "religious"? I'd be very interested to hear how you decide where a philosophy stops being a philosophy and becomes a religion instead. You do remember that in Acts 17 Paul is speaking to the Epicurean philosophers of the day and calls them "very religious", right?
I never said it is the government's job to enforce religious laws. Romans 13 doesn't state that either. Please stop misquoting and actually listen to what is being said. The bible states that government's purpose, and the goal of a good ruler, is to promote good and punish evil. The definitions of what is good and evil do not come from "a religion", a church, or a denomination. They come from our Creator, and are found in His word. The reason we will not reach agreement though is because what humanists believe the purpose of government is will never be the same as what the bible states.
Religion - definition
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Humanism - definition
A secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making.
Religion embraces the supernatural, humanism rejects it
But what if I don't believe as you do? Should I be held to your god's standards of right and wrong?
-
This is me still laughing at you guys. :D :D :D
-
This is me still laughing at you guys. :D :D :D
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It helps to develop logic and mind, regardless of who's "right".
-
Actually for me it's starting to get more sad than humorous.
-
It's brainwashing when liberals do it, but christian values when conservatives do it
Here we go again with claiming politically-driven victimhood. Helpful tip: not everything on the planet is a function of one side of American politics or the other trying to bully their opponents.
But what if I don't believe as you do? Should I be held to your god's standards of right and wrong?
Would you consider it wrong to be held to that standard? And if so, doesn't that mean you are holding him to your standard of right and wrong? In which case, aren't you oppressing his freedoms?
-
But what if I don't believe as you do? Should I be held to your god's standards of right and wrong?
Would you consider it wrong to be held to that standard? And if so, doesn't that mean you are holding him to your standard of right and wrong? In which case, aren't you oppressing his freedoms?
Answer the question.
Holding me to your standard interferes with my right to live how I want to, which I can do as long as my lifestyle doesn't violate the rights of those around me
It's brainwashing when liberals do it, but christian values when conservatives do it
Here we go again with claiming politically-driven victimhood. Helpful tip: not everything on the planet is a function of one side of American politics or the other trying to bully their opponents.
I'm just pointing out that if the kid was spouting liberal propaganda because that's all his parents taught him, you would condemn that
-
You people worry me now. This thread is just scary.
-
I think Wraith was wondering if a debate would start just by the thread name being "Obama".
-
This is me still laughing at you guys. :D :D :D
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It helps to develop logic and mind, regardless of who's "right".
When non-Christians see Christians arguing, I guarantee that they are laughing at us.
Actually for me it's starting to get more sad than humorous.
You'll get no argument from me. ;)
-
How interesting that one just decide that religion, by definition, embraces the supernatural. For those who want the truth, here are ALL the definitions of what constitutes a religion:
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Didn't take very long to find the following if you Google "Humanism":
Attitudes toward religion:
The original signers of the first Humanist Manifesto of 1933, declared themselves to be religious humanists. Because in their view, traditional religions were failing to meet the needs of their day, the signers of 1933 declared it a major necessity to establish a religion that was a dynamic force to meet the needs of the day. (However, it should be noted that this "religion" did not profess a belief in any god.) Since then two additional Manifestos were written to replace the first.
In the Preface of Humanist Manifesto II, the authors Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson (1973) affirm that faith and knowledge are required for a hopeful vision for the future. Manifesto II references a section on Religion and states traditional religion renders a disservice to humanity. Manifesto II recognizes the following groups to be part of their naturalistic philosophy: “scientific,” “ethical,” “democratic,” “religious,” and “Marxist” humanism.
The full Humanism logo.
In the 20th century and 21st century, members of Humanist organizations disagree as to whether Humanism is a religion. They categorize themselves in one of three ways. Religious humanists, in the tradition of the earliest Humanist organizations in the UK and US, saw Humanism as fulfilling the traditional social role of religion.[48] Secular Humanists consider all forms of religion, including religious Humanism, to be superseded.[49] In order to sidestep disagreements between these two factions recent Humanist proclamations define Humanism as a life stance, despite the view expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in a footnote addendum classifying, among others, Secular Humanism a religion that does not believe in God.[50] Regardless of implementation, the philosophy of all three groups rejects deference to supernatural beliefs and addresses ethics without reference to them recognizing ethics as a human enterprise. It is generally compatible with atheism [51] and agnosticism,[52] but being atheist or agnostic does not make one a Humanist.[53]
(So we'll continue to hear humanists to claim that they have no religion, but one need only listen to them to learn otherwise.)
-
This is me still laughing at you guys. :D :D :D
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It helps to develop logic and mind, regardless of who's "right".
When non-Christians see Christians arguing, I guarantee that they are laughing at us.
Actually for me it's starting to get more sad than humorous.
You'll get no argument from me. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
-
I Demand that u cite ur evidence! All of the Founders (except for 4) in their own writings declare Jesus Christ as their Lord, Savior and God. And if u Obviously have not read the Declaration of Independence, in there It shows exactly why they declared independence. I strongly suggest u read ur Bible and read the book 'For You they Signed' and then read their actual speeches and writings, Like Washingtons Farwell Address, and the records of our Constutional Congress, and learn from them. Not from those who wish to make us believe that our Nation that was founded on Christian Principles, was a secular nation founded by Diests, I pray that the Lord will open UR eyes to the truth in his word, and to not be fooled by the world.
It would be nice if you would type properly. "Ur" is not that much shorter than "Your". Thanks.
Time for a quick logic lesson. I actually don't really need to cite too much. I have mostly been asserting negatives (America is not a Christian Nation, Obama is not a Socialist, etc). You can not truly cite evidence for something that doesn't exist. For example, if God did not exist, and you demanded evidence from me to prove that God did not exist, what would I show you? I can not show you something that does not exist. On the contrary, if you say that God does exist, and I demand evidence, you must show evidence that God exists, because since he exists, there is evidence to show. Negatives do not require evidence to support them, they require a contrary statement to refute them. Therefore, you must prove Obama is a Socialist and that America is a Christian Nation by providing support.
I have read the Declaration of Independence. I did not ask why they declared independance. I asked if Britain was violation God's law, because if they were not, then the Revolution was an immoral war according to the Bible.
It was not a Christian Nation. It was a nation found by (mostly Christians). There is a huge difference. Have you ever heard of seperation of Church and State? Or that all are free to practice their own religion regardless of what that may be? Those are in the Constitution, or did your Christian news source not tell you about those?
-
@Steffer (because I'm not quoting that huge block of text)
Really, that's the battle you're choosing to fight?
Also you should probably read your evidence before posting it 'cause
recent Humanist proclamations define Humanism as a life stance,
I don't know why you decided to make this the heart of your campaign but either way good for you :thumbup:.
Now let's get back on topic since you ignored it the first time I ask you again
But what if I don't believe as you do? Should I be held to your god's standards of right and wrong?
-
Have you ever heard of seperation of Church and State? Or that all are free to practice their own religion regardless of what that may be? Those are in the Constitution, or did your Christian news source not tell you about those?
lol oops there goes every last shred of your credibility.
-
Have you ever heard of seperation of Church and State? Or that all are free to practice their own religion regardless of what that may be? Those are in the Constitution, or did your Christian news source not tell you about those?
lol oops there goes every last shred of your credibility.
He's referring to the first amendment, it's commonly known as the separation of church and state.
Oops there goes your credibility, (I mean honestly it would have taken you all of fifteen seconds to look that up)
-
Have you ever heard of seperation of Church and State? Or that all are free to practice their own religion regardless of what that may be? Those are in the Constitution, or did your Christian news source not tell you about those?
lol oops there goes every last shred of your credibility.
The theory of it is there. The 1st ammendment makes it clear the government is not to support one religion over another - this is commonly seen as a seperation of church and state.
-
The theory of it is not there. What do you suppose "religion" meant when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written?
-
@Steffer (because I'm not quoting that huge block of text)
Really, that's the battle you're choosing to fight?
Also you should probably read your evidence before posting it 'cause
recent Humanist proclamations define Humanism as a life stance,
I don't know why you decided to make this the heart of your campaign but either way good for you :thumbup:.
Now let's get back on topic since you ignored it the first time I ask you again
But what if I don't believe as you do? Should I be held to your god's standards of right and wrong?
Why even bother asking that question if you already know how a Christian will answer it? If I truly believe the bible, then OF COURSE I believe that every human being is held accountable to God. Not MY God, as you say it, just GOD. The entire planet was obviously held to God's standards of right and wrong when He destroyed the world with a flood, and it is no different now. You seem to think that one is held only to the standards which they personally believe to be true. Hello anarchy. Or perhaps you think that nothing actually exists until the point that you believe in it? Unless you think that society/government should make NO laws, then you must concede that the individual is held to a standard of some kind. So is it simply what the majority deems right and wrong that makes it so?
-
The theory of it is not there. What do you suppose "religion" meant when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written?
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.
Congress shall not establish a state religion, shall not limit the practicing of any religion, shall not prevent crticism of the government or any other established entity, especially in concerns to the press; additionally, Congress shall not prevent the people from peaceably assembling for any reason, not shall they prevent the people from air any greivences against and Congress.
Religion in this case at the time of writing would seem to imply an established organization of people worshipping together. The stereotypical "religion" is what is meant here.
-
@Steffer (because I'm not quoting that huge block of text)
Really, that's the battle you're choosing to fight?
Also you should probably read your evidence before posting it 'cause
recent Humanist proclamations define Humanism as a life stance,
I don't know why you decided to make this the heart of your campaign but either way good for you :thumbup:.
Now let's get back on topic since you ignored it the first time I ask you again
But what if I don't believe as you do? Should I be held to your god's standards of right and wrong?
Why even bother asking that question if you already know how a Christian will answer it? If I truly believe the bible, then OF COURSE I believe that every human being is held accountable to God. Not MY God, as you say it, just GOD. The entire planet was obviously held to God's standards of right and wrong when He destroyed the world with a flood, and it is no different now. You seem to think that one is help only to the standards which they personally believe to be true. Hello anarchy. Or perhaps you think that nothing actually exists until the point that you believe in it? Unless you think that society/government should make NO laws, then you must concede that the individual is held to a standard of some kind. So is it simply what the majority deems right and wrong that makes it so?
Laws are put in place to protect the rights of citizens, not for some "moral" reason
-
Stef, he isn't arguing on a global scale. He is arguing on a governmental scale, with the assumption that the government is secular.
-
@JSB23
Prove to me that killing is wrong without morals. Then prove that being alive is a "right".
-
Being alive the static position of any person. You can not change the static position of a person (in a kill, murder sense, not a I had a heart attack sense) without their permission. Doing so would violate thier natural right to life due to the right to maintain equilibrium.
-
Being alive the static position of any person. You can not change the static position of a person (in a kill, murder sense, not a I had a heart attack sense) without their permission. Doing so would violate thier natural right to life due to the right to maintain equilibrium.
I'm curious how you apply this to the rights of an unborn child. You cannot deny that it is in a static position of being "alive". (The fact that it depends on other human beings to stay alive is no different than many people in the hospital right now, so please don't go down that road.)
I'm pretty sure that my static, natural state is without health insurance too. Is it a violation of my "static position" of not owning anything that I have not purchased (or been given as a gift) to force me to purchase something that I do not want?
-
We also have the precedent of paying for fire and police protection, wither we want it or not.
-
Being alive the static position of any person. You can not change the static position of a person (in a kill, murder sense, not a I had a heart attack sense) without their permission. Doing so would violate thier natural right to life due to the right to maintain equilibrium.
I'm curious how you apply this to the rights of an unborn child. You cannot deny that it is in a static position of being "alive". (The fact that it depends on other human beings to stay alive is no different than many people in the hospital right now, so please don't go down that road.)
I'm pretty sure that my static, natural state is without health insurance too. Is it a violation of my "static position" of not owning anything that I have not purchased (or been given as a gift) to force me to purchase something that I do not want?
I don't know why you brought abortion into it. It's a person so the same rules would apply. Please levae personal vendettas at the door.
I would say requiring health, car, or any other kind of insurance is a violation of rights, but it is a civilly decided agreement to deny personal right in order to protect the rights of another (the person you wreck into with your car). Health insurance does not really fit into that since it is your body so I don't see why we should require it (governmentally, of course). However, car insurance, etc, I am ok with, because obviously some right must be laid down in a country in order to prevent anarchy. If everyone had every right you would be looking at anarchy.
-
The theory of it is not there. What do you suppose "religion" meant when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written?
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.
Well, the whole ordeal of "Separation of church and state" stems from a personal letter that Thomas Jefferson sent, the First Amendment itself was not the original document cited. The First Amendment's statement about "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is like a two-sided coin. Following the First Amendment, the government should have no say in an example of the 10 Commandments being on display inside a courthouse because that is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. At the same time, all religions should have the ability to express their writings inside the courthouse as well. Prayer cannot be banned from schools by the government, because the individual student has the right to exercise their religion, however, no student should be REQUIRED to listen to it. As with all things, if the majority of students agree that a prayer from a specific religion should be included in a ceremony, then it shall be so that it does not interfere with the rights of those who did not agree. We did the same thing in bootcamp. A company prayer was allowed almost every night, but only those who wanted to participate, participated.
When viewing the First Amendment as such, your "Separation of Church and State Theory" seems relatively weak in my personal opinion, because you're looking at the coin from only one side.
-C_S
-
The court pointed out in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that after the Fourteenth Amendment made the First Amendment applicable to the states, the Establishment Clause means that neither the federal government nor a state "can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." And in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the court said governments may not show a preference for "religion to irreligion."
I got that from a site that JSB previously cited on this thread when he posted a excerpt from this paragraph. Seems like the Supreme Court doesn't agree that the government has no say of a 10 commandments outside a court room, because that is a sign of passive support for Christianity. Governmental policy has decided that the correct interpretation of the 1st ammendment is to support no religion (but not irreligion) rather than attempt to show support for all of them equally.
-
The court pointed out in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that after the Fourteenth Amendment made the First Amendment applicable to the states, the Establishment Clause means that neither the federal government nor a state "can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." And in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the court said governments may not show a preference for "religion to irreligion."
I got that from a site that JSB previously cited on this thread when he posted a excerpt from this paragraph. Seems like the Supreme Court doesn't agree that the government has no say of a 10 commandments outside a court room, because that is a sign of passive support for Christianity. Governmental policy has decided that the correct interpretation of the 1st ammendment is to support no religion (but not irreligion) rather than attempt to show support for all of them equally.
Regardless of that interpretation, based on the wording and context of the First Amendment, even a passive attempt at controlling any law that has anything to do with the free exercise of religion is against the First Amendment. You can't really cite the First Amendment as a source for the "Separation of Church and State" because the First Amendment does not say that. The true context of the First Amendment was so that there would be no specified Religion that represented the country, and as a result, dictate what can and cannot be practiced, hence, the United States IS NOT a Christian Nation. The Church of England had the power to make laws that affect the people and their ability to follow one religion over another. Remember the Crusades? All that bloodshed done in the name of religion? People being executed and persecuted because their morals/religion didn't align with Mother England's Catholicism? That's what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent. Not the petty "I'm offended" arguments. Again, my opinion, based loosely on historical context and conclusions derived from the period in time.
-C_S
-
That's all true and well and good but two centuries of Supreme Court decisions disagree that the 1st ammendment is not about seperation of church and state.
Fun addendum for whenever megamanlan reads this:
In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[47]
Straight from the treaty via the wiki.
-
Time for a quick logic lesson. I actually don't really need to cite too much. I have mostly been asserting negatives (America is not a Christian Nation, Obama is not a Socialist, etc). You can not truly cite evidence for something that doesn't exist.
That's not entirely correct. Asserting a negative is still an assertion, just of a null hypothesis. In other words, it is in opposition to the statements of others that Obama aspires to socialism. You can still provide evidence in support of your assertion, in the same manner as those who wish to prove what you deny. You find something that cannot be true in both instances, and demonstrate that it favors your assertion and disproves the alternative. You can't prove a negative, but you can disprove a positive.
Laws are put in place to protect the rights of citizens, not for some "moral" reason
In other words, because it is moral for those in authority to protect the rights of their constituents.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
This conversation has been had before, about how there are a number of ways in which the United States could potentially be qualified as a "Christian nation" - and that establishing that it is not a theocratic government only disproves one of those qualifiers, not all of them.
-
That's from the Treaty of Tripoli, a governmental piece from 1797 Schaef. Not my thoughts, Washington's government's thoughts.
-
That's all true and well and good but two centuries of Supreme Court decisions disagree that the 1st ammendment is not about seperation of church and state.
Fun addendum for whenever megamanlan reads this:
In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[47]
Straight from the treaty via the wiki.
That is not declaring a complete separation of church and state. That is a treaty between two countries saying that their alliance and ability to coexist will not be changed because of religious reasons. The Separation of church and state argument is an internal debate, not an international debate and is in reference to what I stated above: That the church and state are two separate entities, but the First Amendment is not the source of that information. Also, this example that you provided does not mention the First Amendment at all so I'm not sure how you base your claim of "two centuries of Supreme Court decisions disagree..." on it.
-C_S
-
I wasn't directing that part of that post to you. I would base my "two centuries of supreme court decisions" on the previous post where I posted about the Supreme Court decisions on the issue.
-
The talk about health care has ceased, but maybe I should add a heal ability to the card. ;) :D
-
That's from the Treaty of Tripoli, a governmental piece from 1797 Schaef. Not my thoughts, Washington's government's thoughts.
Did you even read what I said in response?
-
I wasn't directing that part of that post to you. I would base my "two centuries of supreme court decisions" on the previous post where I posted about the Supreme Court decisions on the issue.
My mistake. However, it would help if you had of quoted myself or whoever you were referring to.
-C_S
-
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
This conversation has been had before, about how there are a number of ways in which the United States could potentially be qualified as a "Christian nation" - and that establishing that it is not a theocratic government only disproves one of those qualifiers, not all of them.
Firstly: Citation needed
Secondly:
The US was not founded on the Christianity (Treaty of Tripoli)
The US can not make any laws based on the Bible (although a lot of people forget this one :P) (First amendment and Everson v. Board of Education)
So how is US a christian nation
-
That's from the Treaty of Tripoli, a governmental piece from 1797 Schaef. Not my thoughts, Washington's government's thoughts.
Did you even read what I said in response?
Yes. I was responding that we are in no way a Christian Nation, even according to Washington's government, who is seen as the bastion of Christian founders.
-
Firstly: Citation needed
I'm happy to link back to older threads covering this topic though there seems to be a lack of consistency on who has to uphold such a cherished principle:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16049.msg250619#msg250619 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16049.msg250619#msg250619)
The US was not founded on the Christianity
The government was not founded on the religion. That doesn't demonstrate anything apart from the absence of a theocracy, which I didn't think anyone here was unaware of. That is only one regard in which the US can be founded on "the Christianity".
The US can not make any laws based on the Bible
You're the first person I can recall in this or any other conversation on this topic that has even bothered to bring that up. So I don't see the point in arguing a claim no one is making.
So how is US a christian nation
I don't know, Josh, how can the the US be one of the largest Muslim nations in the world if the US was not founded on "the Islam"?
-
I don't know, Josh, how can the the US be one of the largest Muslim nations in the world if the US was not founded on "the Islam"?
The US isn't an Islamic nation
-
The US isn't an Islamic nation
I see you didn't go back and look at the previous discussion. Obama once said that we are one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.
So if the US was not founded on The Islam (tm), and if the US cannot make any laws based on the Qu'ran, then how in the world can this statement of his be accurate?
-
The US isn't an Islamic nation
I see you didn't go back and look at the previous discussion. Obama once said that we are one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.
So if the US was not founded on The Islam (tm), and if the US cannot make any laws based on the Qu'ran, then how in the world can this statement of his be accurate?
The statement is not correct, Obama said that to try and convince the peoples of the middle east that the US is not the devil
-
The statement is not correct, Obama said that to try and convince the peoples of the middle east that the US is not the devil
I already know the statement is not correct, because there are over 50 countries on the planet with tens of millions of Muslims, comprising at least half their population. Muslims are about 1% of the US population.
The factual inaccuracy of it aside, your own father seemed to agree with me that his classification of our country as being Muslim in nature is correct. So what reason can you think of that the two of us and the president of the United States - three people of significant intelligence - would think that is a valid characterization, even if it doesn't match either of your two criteria?
-
That's from the Treaty of Tripoli, a governmental piece from 1797 Schaef. Not my thoughts, Washington's government's thoughts.
Did you even read what I said in response?
Yes. I was responding that we are in no way a Christian Nation, even according to Washington's government, who is seen as the bastion of Christian founders.
You are right. However, much of our early history was highly influenced by Judeo-Christian ideology.
Article III
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Technically, Wiccans, could make a valid argument that they should not be liable for human sacrifices during their rituals, since that would be limiting their freedom of religion.
The point is this article isn't neccessarily cut and dried. In many situations it is hard to tell which statements of the constitution should be given the trump card. In the situation above the contradictory staments are "prohibiting the free existence thereof" or ensuring "life liberty and the pursuit of happyness" of all individuals (including Wiccans).
-
Obama stinks. Nuff said foo.
-
If only I could find a character in the Bible with a name that sounds like Glenn Beck...just for fun.
-
Glenn Beck
Ignores any card based on logic. Discard this card if Jon Stewart comes into play.
-
I see that we have learned nothing from this weekend's shooting. FTR, I am no longer laughing at you guys. I have sincere sympathy for you, however.
-
You don't think you contributed at all by laughing?
-
You don't think you contributed at all by laughing?
No.
-
....shooting?
-
....shooting?
In Arizona. A Representative of Arizona was shot and 6 other people were killed, including a 9 year old girl.
EDITED: Had my numbers mixed up.
-C_S
-
A sad tragedy, we held a prayer session in chapel today. However, I don't see how that pertains to this discussion, but I might be missing something.
-
However, I don't see how that pertains to this discussion, but I might be missing something.
Exactly!
-
You don't think you contributed at all by laughing?
No.
Then you are in the same boat you think we are in.
-
A sad tragedy, we held a prayer session in chapel today. However, I don't see how that pertains to this discussion, but I might be missing something.
I think, now you may or may not quote me on this, but I'd rather you not take my word for it, that it pertains to this discussion because the person that did the shooting allowed themselves to take their opinion on politics literally. i.e. they were very opinionated and passionate about their views and acted on them. So, others are just cautioning that things get politically heated on here some times, so you never know who's capable of doing extreme measures or who is being literal about some of their opinions. Again, that's the connection I see.
-C_S
-
A sad tragedy, we held a prayer session in chapel today. However, I don't see how that pertains to this discussion, but I might be missing something.
I think, now you may or may not quote me on this, but I'd rather you not take my word for it, that it pertains to this discussion because the person that did the shooting allowed themselves to take their opinion on politics literally. i.e. they were very opinionated and passionate about their views and acted on them. So, others are just cautioning that things get politically heated on here some times, so you never know who's capable of doing extreme measures or who is being literal about some of their opinions. Again, that's the connection I see.
-C_S
You see more clearly than I realized. ;D
Then you are in the same boat you think we are in.
Wrong again.
-
Omission is no longer the same as commission then? I missed that memo.
-
Omission is no longer the same as commission then? I missed that memo.
Still wrong.
-
Thanks for being so elucidating on the issue.
-
Thanks for being so elucidating on the issue.
You may never be able to be right about this.
-
Omission is no longer the same as commission then? I missed that memo.
My previous post explains why YMT has chosen not to participate:
I think, now you may or may not quote me on this, but I'd rather you not take my word for it, that it pertains to this discussion because the person that did the shooting allowed themselves to take their opinion on politics literally. i.e. they were very opinionated and passionate about their views and acted on them. So, others are just cautioning that things get politically heated on here some times, so you never know who's capable of doing extreme measures or who is being literal about some of their opinions. Again, that's the connection I see.
-C_S
-C_S
-
Thanks for being so elucidating on the issue.
You may never be able to be right about this.
However, if his inability to be right comes from your refusal to fully explain yourself, the fault lies with you. The insinuation that those of us participating in this thread (with the obvious exception of you) are psychopathic wackos who prefer to solve their problems with bullets appalls me.
-
However, if his inability to be right comes from your refusal to fully explain yourself, the fault lies with you.
I just want to make sure that you guys know how you sound to the casual viewer.
The insinuation that those of us participating in this thread (with the obvious exception of you) are psychopathic wackos who prefer to solve their problems with bullets appalls me.
Then you know now how appalling this whole thread became.
-
However, if his inability to be right comes from your refusal to fully explain yourself, the fault lies with you.
I just want to make sure that you guys know how you sound to the casual viewer.
The insinuation that those of us participating in this thread (with the obvious exception of you) are psychopathic wackos who prefer to solve their problems with bullets appalls me.
Then you know now how appalling this whole thread became.
YMT, they're trying to suck you in... They WANT you to respond, stop encouraging them. =]
-C_S
-
I'm not even sure there has been an instance of people addressing anyone in a hateful manner, or implying anything violent against another human being.
-
I'm not even sure there has been an instance of people addressing anyone in a hateful manner, or implying anything violent against another human being.
There never is. It's ALWAYS the quiet ones. =]
-C_S
-
Oh, get off the whole violence thing. It was just an exaggeration for emphasis.
Hateful may be an extreme, but there was very little brotherly love evidenced throughout, and plenty of putdowns.
Sniper, I've said my peace. I'm outta here! ;D
-
I'm getting pretty tired of the older generation's mentality that we need to learn from our own mistakes, yet when anyone asks what the mistakes were, the older generation chuckles and doesn't respond. It's been a theme several times around the boards and in the world, and that contributes just as much to any problem as anything else does. I expect that sort of stuff in a debate because it can help you "win" the debate, the currently vogue thing to do in debates, but to have it come from people who claim to want to help is really old.
-
It hasn't been my experience that people have been very receptive to explicitly stated advice either, so you'll forgive me if I'm not persuaded by the "we're eager to learn if only someone were willing to teach" line, either.
-
I'm getting pretty tired of the older generation's mentality that we need to learn from our own mistakes, yet when anyone asks what the mistakes were, the older generation chuckles and doesn't respond. It's been a theme several times around the boards and in the world, and that contributes just as much to any problem as anything else does. I expect that sort of stuff in a debate because it can help you "win" the debate, the currently vogue thing to do in debates, but to have it come from people who claim to want to help is really old.
Alright, I'll spell it out for you. YMT was only saying "You're wrong" to everything you said in response to his posts because that is how he views pretty much everyone's response to each other on political issues. And he's right, too (I can't believe I just wrote that). It is quite interesting to see how a majority of posts on here are followed by another response about why the original response was wrong. Then the author tries to clarify, and again, it's followed up by another post that basically states the new post is "wrong." Then, when they ask why it's wrong, very little is said as to why it's wrong, just that it is wrong. Now you should really know how it feels to be "wrong." There was very little point in YMT posting any of his political views because surely, a post would pop up stating that he "is wrong." It's an endless debate of people being wrong.
-C_S
-
I'd like YMT to realize that some are wonks, and some aren't. Schaef makes a very good point. If there was any uncivil action, I'm sure he would have locked this thread.
Wonk - Someone who loves politics and discussion of politics.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_hdDfz3pI2EQ%2FTFc7Aes5VpI%2FAAAAAAAAAcY%2FUct6zSR0zbg%2Fs1600%2Fwilly-wonka-wilder.jpg&hash=988163e82eed0858cb72f5f415a821af0b89f429)
This thread is now about Willy Wonka.
-
It's actually about his cousin, Policy Wonka.
So shines a budget committee in a weary legislature.
-
You see. This is much more fun. ;D
Wonk - Someone who loves politics and discussion of politics.
Wink - Someone who should not be taken seriously. ;)
-
I read way too far into these posts sometimes. Seriously, don't take my explanations of what I THINK YMT means as accurate. He loves to kid and so do I, but I'm only guessing as to the reasoning behind his posts. He probably laughs at my explanations because they are so far away from what he actually meant that it's hilarious. See? There I go again. As far as the whole violence/Arizona shooting thing, I have no idea if my interpretation reflected anyone's feelings at all. I apologize if that misled/made anyone nervous/made a bad impression. I did not mean it in bad taste, so again, I apologize if it came off that way.
-C_S
-
I read way too far into these posts sometimes. Seriously, don't take my explanations of what I THINK YMT means as accurate. He loves to kid and so do I, but I'm only guessing as to the reasoning behind his posts. He probably laughs at my explanations because they are so far away from what he actually meant that it's hilarious.
You were actually stunningly close to my intentions. The only miscue was the part about me sharing "my political views." I am anti-political (apolitical?). I have no views to share, other than politics is the root of all sorts of evil. The only reason we have politics in the first place is because we couldn't trust God's decisions over our own (I'm looking at you Israel asking for a King). ;)
As far as the whole violence/Arizona shooting thing, I have no idea if my interpretation reflected anyone's feelings at all. I apologize if that misled/made anyone nervous/made a bad impression. I did not mean it in bad taste, so again, I apologize if it came off that way.
In spite of your username, I don't think any of us perceive you as a psychopath. :maul:
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_hdDfz3pI2EQ%2FTFc7Aes5VpI%2FAAAAAAAAAcY%2FUct6zSR0zbg%2Fs1600%2Fwilly-wonka-wilder.jpg&hash=988163e82eed0858cb72f5f415a821af0b89f429)
This thread is now about psychopaths.
-
I read way too far into these posts sometimes. Seriously, don't take my explanations of what I THINK YMT means as accurate. He loves to kid and so do I, but I'm only guessing as to the reasoning behind his posts. He probably laughs at my explanations because they are so far away from what he actually meant that it's hilarious.
You were actually stunningly close to my intentions. The only miscue was the part about me sharing "my political views." I am anti-political (apolitical?). I have no views to share, other than politics is the root of all sorts of evil. The only reason we have politics in the first place is because we couldn't trust God's decisions over our own (I'm looking at you Israel asking for a King). ;)
As far as the whole violence/Arizona shooting thing, I have no idea if my interpretation reflected anyone's feelings at all. I apologize if that misled/made anyone nervous/made a bad impression. I did not mean it in bad taste, so again, I apologize if it came off that way.
In spite of your username, I don't think any of us perceive you as a psychopath. :maul:
Wow, well, I'm glad to see that I WAS pretty much on target... It's almost kind of scary. ;) However, I guess I have you fooled in the Psychopath department... because I do think like one sometimes. :maul: (Which is why I love reading books about them) :angel: . God just got to me first and I'm pretty sure He has plans to use my crazy mind for good.
-C_S
-
I'm getting pretty tired of the older generation's mentality that we need to learn from our own mistakes, yet when anyone asks what the mistakes were, the older generation chuckles and doesn't respond.
Different people have different personalities. Some of the "older generation" like YMT and Schaef prefer to say their piece all in their first post on a thread, and then can be somewhat vague in all subsequent posts. I on the other hand, tend to respond over and over until I have beat a dead horse into the ground. After having a few discussions about your mistakes with me, you'll probably appreciate YMT and Schaef's approach a lot more :)
-
I'm getting pretty tired of the older generation's mentality that we need to learn from our own mistakes, yet when anyone asks what the mistakes were, the older generation chuckles and doesn't respond.
The reason we chuckle is that you really can kill two birds with one stone!
Which we thought of after our wives had actually driven over two squirrels at once.
Which we thought of after we remember how Rainman just wanted to drive.
Which we thought of after Jenny McCarthy's son.
Which we thought of after who would be considered a better Riddler than Jim Carrey.
Which we thought of after this riddle:
"If a young person asks you to point out their mistakes and you tell them, they take offense and call you arrogant old $#*+!"
"If a young person asks you to point out their mistakes and you don't tell them, they take offense and call you arrogant old $#*+!"
What should Oedipus do?
;)
-
Loving the choice of symbols STAMP chose :P!
-
Well, I am glad to see the Christian road here. Because if something could help someone, Christians definately shouldn't do it, especially if they think they will get called $#*+!
-
Well, I am glad to see the Christian road here. Because if something could help someone, Christians definately shouldn't do it, especially if they think they will get called $#*+!
At this point I have no idea what you are talking about. :-\