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 Sparko View Post
    If there is no God and it is just evolution and survival of the fittest then there is no "all are equal" - by definition. The weakest are dominated by the powerful. Slavery is a perfect example of this.
    If the Bible is true and some are among God's chosen people then there is no "all are equal" - by definition. Different rules apply to others. Slavery is a perfect example of 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 JimL View Post
      like I said earlier, James Madison himself, the principle author of the Constitution, warned against government sponsered religion which is what leading christian prayer in school and christian monuments in public places and buildings.
      Where did Madison have a problem with christian prayer in school and christian monuments in public places and buildings? Didn't he support the Christian Chaplain service?
      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 Roy View Post
        That is simply not true.
        Argument by weblink is against the rules --- you got something to say? Say it, and you can use a cite to back it up. You know better, Roy.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
          If the Bible is true and some are among God's chosen people then there is no "all are equal" - by definition. Different rules apply to others. Slavery is a perfect example of this.
          God's "chosen people" were those through whom the Messiah would come. Messiah has come, and there is now neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free; all are equal in Christ.

          Perhaps you shouldn't play word games - but that's just about your only schtick here.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            The point isn't that the founding fathers were not christians, or believers in a god, whether theist or deist, the point is that the government/state would not sanction any particular belief system.
            No - the point is that they didn't OPPOSE any belief system, and would not choose one as an official state religion.

            Besides that, that you would want them to simply means you want a theocratic government.
            How can you be such a moron and still type? Nobody is WANTING a "state religion" -- but the "wall of separation" to which Jefferson referred was in direct response to government establishing an official religion -- it was NOT about keeping religion from influencing government.

            Thank the god I don't believe in, the founding fathers were a lot wiser than you lot.
            That the God I do believe in that morons like you weren't involved in the process.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              God's "chosen people" were those through whom the Messiah would come. Messiah has come, and there is now neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free; all are equal in Christ.

              Perhaps you shouldn't play word games - but that's just about your only schtick here.
              Ya beat me to it.
              "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
                No - the point is that they didn't OPPOSE any belief system, and would not choose one as an official state religion.
                Oh, and here I had always thought of christianity as a belief system. As much as you want it to be, it's not a christian nation, pastor!


                How can you be such a moron and still type? Nobody is WANTING a "state religion"
                Oh, then you don't want teachers leading class with christian prayers in public schools or christian monuments placed in public places and buildings? Good for you, CP.


                -- but the "wall of separation" to which Jefferson referred was in direct response to government establishing an official religion -- it was NOT about keeping religion from influencing government.
                Oh, I see, so you would have no problem then with muslim influences in government, muslim lead prayer in public schools etc. No, I didn't think so!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Oh, and here I had always thought of christianity as a belief system. As much as you want it to be, it's not a christian nation, pastor!



                  Oh, then you don't want teachers leading class with christian prayers in public schools or christian monuments placed in public places and buildings? Good for you, CP.



                  Oh, I see, so you would have no problem then with muslim influences in government, muslim lead prayer in public schools etc. No, I didn't think so!
                  You're doing that Drama Queen thing today, Jimmy. Is there a little prissy dance that goes with that?
                  "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
                    Oh, I see, so you would have no problem then with muslim influences in government, muslim lead prayer in public schools etc. No, I didn't think so!
                    Yes I do have a problem, this country was not founded by Muslims, they have no historical or philosophical connection.
                    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 seer View Post
                      Yes I do have a problem, this country was not founded by Muslims, they have no historical or philosophical connection.
                      You were right, JimL is trolling now. He is just repeating and doubling down on his idiocy.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        You were right, JimL is trolling now. He is just repeating and doubling down on his idiocy.
                        Ummm.....

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        At this point, I think he's ing --- he does that when he realizes he's really said something stupid, and just starts doubling down on it.


                        I think Jimmy is so far out of his depth on this that he's just saying idiot stuff because he craves attention.
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          So those liberals would be "conservative"? I think you're switching between two shades of meaning of "conservative". But no matter.I think this is two axes, not one.
                          Why can't some-one both interpret the constitution according to its original meaning and want to change the constitution to something else via the amendment process?
                          that is not what the progressives are doing with their "Living Document" Philosophy, Roy.

                          You're suggesting all liberals progressives want to reinterpret the constitution while retaining the original wording, rather that amending the constitution. This seems unlikely.
                          That is exactly what they want to do and have been doing all along with their "Living Document" philosophy they have. They have decided that you take the meaning the words have now days instead of the true context of what they meant back when the document was written to decide what the document is saying. In other words to them the Constitution says what they want it to say instead of what it does in the clear 17th century English it was written in. they refuse to read it in it's true context. In other words using their living Document philosophy when folks talk about the Gay 90s they not talking about the fun loving time of the 1890s that it refers to you need to say it is about homosexual rights activism in the 1990s.

                          Or like RBG said in her opposition to the majority that we need to to look at how other countries do it and ignore the Constitution where the other countries don't agree with it. no talk about lets try to amend the Constitution.
                          Last edited by RumTumTugger; 09-20-2019, 09:46 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                            That is exactly what they want to do and have been doing all along with their "Living Document" philosophy they have. They have decided that you take the meaning the words have now days instead of the true context of what they meant back when the document was written to decide what the document is saying. In other words to them the Constitution says what they want it to say instead of what it does in the clear 17th century English it was written in. they refuse to read it in it's true context. In other words using their living Document philosophy when folks talk about the Gay 90s they not talking about the fun loving time of the 1890s that it refers to you need to say it is about homosexual rights activism in the 1990s.

                            Or like RBG said in her opposition to the majority that we need to to look at how other countries do it and ignore the Constitution where the other countries don't agree with it. no talk about lets try to amend the Constitution.
                            Exactly!!!!
                            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 RumTumTugger View Post

                              Or like RBG said in her opposition to the majority that we need to to look at how other countries do it and ignore the Constitution where the other countries don't agree with it. no talk about lets try to amend the Constitution.
                              Ginsburg is hardly the only SCOTUS justice to speak approvingly of using foreign precedents in making determinations on what is and is not constitutional.

                              Stephen Beyers has said that critics concerns over the practice should in effect be ignored (they "are beside the point") and that "the nature of the world itself that demands [that we look at foreign laws]" when deciding what is constitutional.

                              But it isn't just the left.

                              Sandra O'Connor wrote in favor of relying upon foreign sources of law in her dissenting opinion in Roper v. Simmons (2005) which dealt with capital punishment, and Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion for Roper v. Simmons:

                              "The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions."


                              According to legal writer Jeffrey Toobin, starting in 2003, Kennedy became a leading proponent for the use of foreign and international law as an aid to interpreting the United States Constitution and figures that is the primary reason for his break with the conservatives on the court.

                              And even one of the leading opponents to the idea on the SCOTUS, the late Antonin Scalia (who debated Beyers on the matter at American University Washington College of Law in 2005), has actually referenced foreign sources of law in support of his opinion at least twice (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission and Coy v. Iowa -- 1995 and 1998 respectively).

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Yes I do have a problem, this country was not founded by Muslims, they have no historical or philosophical connection.
                                That the founders of this country were mostly christian, or that they were the authors of the constitution, doesn't make this a christian country any more than if they were jews or muslims would make it a jewish or muslim country. The constitution is not a religious document.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 08:17 AM
                                3 responses
                                52 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by LiconaFan97, 10-23-2020, 04:56 PM
                                29 responses
                                190 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by Juvenal, 10-23-2020, 11:08 AM
                                10 responses
                                102 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Juvenal
                                by Juvenal
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 10-23-2020, 08:52 AM
                                6 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 10-22-2020, 10:59 PM
                                70 responses
                                550 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X