Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why I Voted For Trump...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    I think I gave explanation for that already. Though the Founding fathers were themselves, mostly christians, just as they were slave holders, they understood that ultimately government could not discriminate in either case. Being that they were mostly christian at the time, they did continue to to discriminate when it came to religion still, even against the warning of the main author of the Constitution, one James Madison. But what they did, and what the Constitution said were two different things in both cases, i.e. with respect to both slavery and religion.
    No Jim, what it shows is that the Founders were not so anal about supporting Religion as long as one was not forced to join a church. I doubt if you could find one Founder who would have had a problem with school prayer for instance - just the opposite. And remember James Madison was involved with instituting the Christian chaplain service. https://wallbuilders.com/james-madison-religion-public/
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
      ...what the Constitution said were two different things in both cases, i.e. with respect to both slavery and religion.
      The Constitution as originally written did not forbid slavery and in fact had a provision (Article 1, Section 9) that prohibited Congress from making any decision about slavery until 1808, 21-years after the Constitution was signed.

      So if your argument is that the Founding Fathers violated the Constitution on multiple points, then you're wrong.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        The Constitution as originally written did not forbid slavery and in fact had a provision (Article 1, Section 9) that prohibited Congress from making any decision about slavery until 1808, 21-years after the Constitution was signed.

        So if your argument is that the Founding Fathers violated the Constitution on multiple points, then you're wrong.
        Slavery was still legal across most of the country at that time so...
        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
          Slavery was still legal across most of the country at that time so...
          The Constitution went even further and prohibited free states from giving sanctuary to fugitive slaves.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            The Founders recognized that slavery was not Constitutional as written into the Constitution, yet slavery was still legal at the time and for about 8 decades thereafter. They also recognized, in the Establishment Clause, that the government had no business with religion, other than protecting its freedom, even though some aspects of religion and tradition still existed in government at the time. Separation of church and state.
            Again what does slavery have to do with the separation of Church and State? You just stated two unrelated things, one after the other. Neither of which is true.

            Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              The government being against a state run church means no preference for any church, any religion, and monuments in public buildings and schools is showing a preference. Doesn't matter what existed at the time, like slavery was finally corrected in accordance with their Constitutional thought process, so too was any governments role in religions.
              Slavery wasn't unconstitutional Jim.

              And how in the hell do you think they purposefully separated church from state, while simultaneously allowing all of the things you say they were outlawing, like monuments in public buildings, even a church in the capitol building, opening congress with a prayer and having chaplains in government and the military?

              Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                I think I gave explanation for that already. Though the Founding fathers were themselves, mostly christians, just as they were slave holders, they understood that ultimately government could not discriminate in either case. Being that they were mostly christian at the time, they did continue to to discriminate when it came to religion still, even against the warning of the main author of the Constitution, one James Madison. But what they did, and what the Constitution said were two different things in both cases, i.e. with respect to both slavery and religion.
                You are a moron. You think they purposefully wrote stuff into the constitution of the new country, then also purposefully ignored what they just wrote? That would be completely schizophrenic. The only nut here is you. You have such cognitive dissonance that you can't admit you are wrong. So you invent this idea that the founders were schizoids instead.

                Stop smoking the wacky weed, JimL. Your brain has blown a gasket or something.

                Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Again what does slavery have to do with the separation of Church and State? You just stated two unrelated things, one after the other. Neither of which is true.
                  Jim's typical "well, I can't defend what I said, so let's throw something else in the mix".
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    So, going back to (I'm assuming) the original quote from whence cometh all this discord...
                    Ok, I'll respond.
                    NOT "instead" - the case against abortion is being made every day, and modern science is really kicking abortion's butt. So ya really got THAT part wrong.
                    I'm not sure how modern science could possibly kick abortion's butt, unless you mean by pushing the date of foetal viability ever backwards. Ok, it's highlighting the time-line of foetal development and showing the stages at which the brain develops and responsiveness and awareness occur, but the arguments for/against abortion are largely focussed on foetal vs parental rights anyway.

                    But ok, I'll accept that there may be a two-pronged approach:
                    1) Try to win the game
                    2) Replace the referee with one of your own
                    And, clearly, judges do not change laws. They don't change laws, they don't change THEM laws, they don't change THE laws.... that's not what judges do.
                    I know. I've always known.

                    What they do do is determine which laws should be upheld, and which rejected as unconstitutional. Those decisions can change the law. If, for example, a state has a law that prohibits e.g. smoking pot, and judges strike that law down as unconstitutional, then the law has changed* because something that was previously illegal is now legal.**

                    you're appointing new judges that already agree with you and who will change the laws regardless of whether there is any reason to do so.
                    That's quite an accusation ya got there -- some how, we're going to nominate and confirm dishonest judges with horrible ethics.
                    That's right.

                    Because if you're not going to appoint judges who make rulings based on their political and religious views rather than on the facts and merits of the cases before them, then what's the point of appointing judges with particular political/religious views? If judges are going to decide cases based purely on facts and law, then you'd expect conservative and liberal judges to reach the same conclusions. The only reason to specifically appoint conservative judges is so that they will decide cases based on their conservatism, not on legal principles.

                    It could be argued that the aim is to replace judges that are deciding cases based on liberalism, but that would fail because you wouldn't need to replace them with conservative judges, only unbiased ones.

                    Oh, and there have been examples of judges, even SCOTUS ones, producing verdicts based on their religion - such as Scalia and Rehnquist's opinion in Edwards v Aguillard that a law that mandated teaching young earth creationism didn't have a religious purpose.

                    That's really over the top, Roy. I mean --- it's like its own whole conspiracy. It's just downright nutty.
                    It's the stated strategy.

                    1) Vote for Trump, because he will ...
                    2) ... appoint conservative judges, who will
                    3) ... uphold laws against abortion.


                    *By whatever mechanism is used to remove downstruck laws.
                    **I am astonished that you and the others do not understand this.
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      Ok, I'll respond.I'm not sure how modern science could possibly kick abortion's butt, unless you mean by pushing the date of foetal viability ever backwards. Ok, it's highlighting the time-line of foetal development and showing the stages at which the brain develops and responsiveness and awareness occur, but the arguments for/against abortion are largely focussed on foetal vs parental rights anyway.

                      But ok, I'll accept that there may be a two-pronged approach:
                      1) Try to win the game
                      2) Replace the referee with one of your own
                      I know. I've always known.

                      What they do do is determine which laws should be upheld, and which rejected as unconstitutional. Those decisions can change the law. If, for example, a state has a law that prohibits e.g. smoking pot, and judges strike that law down as unconstitutional, then the law has changed* because something that was previously illegal is now legal.**

                      That's right.

                      Because if you're not going to appoint judges who make rulings based on their political and religious views rather than on the facts and merits of the cases before them, then what's the point of appointing judges with particular political/religious views? If judges are going to decide cases based purely on facts and law, then you'd expect conservative and liberal judges to reach the same conclusions. The only reason to specifically appoint conservative judges is so that they will decide cases based on their conservatism, not on legal principles.

                      It could be argued that the aim is to replace judges that are deciding cases based on liberalism, but that would fail because you wouldn't need to replace them with conservative judges, only unbiased ones.

                      Oh, and there have been examples of judges, even SCOTUS ones, producing verdicts based on their religion - such as Scalia and Rehnquist's opinion in Edwards v Aguillard that a law that mandated teaching young earth creationism didn't have a religious purpose.

                      It's the stated strategy.

                      1) Vote for Trump, because he will ...
                      2) ... appoint conservative judges, who will
                      3) ... uphold laws against abortion.


                      *By whatever mechanism is used to remove downstruck laws.
                      **I am astonished that you and the others do not understand this.
                      Thanks for taking the time to respond, Roy - I can't do you justice right now (get it?) but I'll return to this later this afternoon.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        You are a moron. You think they purposefully wrote stuff into the constitution of the new country, then also purposefully ignored what they just wrote? That would be completely schizophrenic. The only nut here is you. You have such cognitive dissonance that you can't admit you are wrong. So you invent this idea that the founders were schizoids instead.

                        Stop smoking the wacky weed, JimL. Your brain has blown a gasket or something.
                        Already proved that to you in the same post, stupid. "all men are created equal" - yet slavery continued for another 8 decades or so.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Jim's typical "well, I can't defend what I said, so let's throw something else in the mix".
                          No stupid, it's an analogous situation. They wrote one thing, but did another. Their ideals were higher than their actions at the time. Madison himself, the main author of the Constitution warned against any sort of religion in government. And he was a staunch supporter of religious liberty.
                          Last edited by JimL; 09-18-2019, 11:08 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            If judges are going to decide cases based purely on facts and law, then you'd expect conservative and liberal judges to reach the same conclusions. The only reason to specifically appoint conservative judges is so that they will decide cases based on their conservatism, not on legal principles.
                            How about judges who decide cases based on the original intent of the writers? We are not looking for conservatives per se, we are looking for originalists.

                            In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified. This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment, and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five. This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of the current times, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document.
                            So Originalism stands in contrast with the Living Constitution model.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              No stupid
                              This is always a sign that you don't have a valid argument.
                              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                No stupid, it's an analogous situation. They wrote one thing, but did another. Their ideals were higher than their actions at the time. Madison himself, the main author of the Constitution warned against any sort of religion in government. And he was a staunch supporter of religious liberty.
                                Madison was one man, Jimmy. And the "government" had, at its very founding, chaplains and prayers and all manner of religious vestige.

                                You seem absolutely determined to wrongly interpret the "wall of separation" -- it is clear to anybody with a function brain that Jefferson was responding to the Danbury Baptist Association's concern that there would be a "national" or "state religion". Jefferson was assuring him there would be religious liberty.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X