PLEASE, AMERICA, CHOOSE A PRESIDENT...

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

PLEASE, AMERICA, CHOOSE A PRESIDENT...

Post by PeterD » Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:46 am

Hi, I am PeterD and I approve the following message.

Please, America, choose a president ...
  • ...who can speak better English than a foreigner learning English as a second language.

    "Is our children learning?" is just inexcusable. America, are you not embarrassed?

    ...who at least reads, now and then. My Pet Goat is not proper reading material for an adult.

    "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures."

    ...who does not require the use of cue cards (or hidden microphones?) when he addresses the American people. Take away his cue cards and the man is unable to speak coherently.

    "It's hard work...it's hard work...it's hard work..."

    ...who keeps abreast of current events.

    Bush: "The new Pakistani General, he's just been elected...He appears he'll bring stability to the country."
    Interviewer: "And can you name him?"
    Bush: "General, I can name the General."
    Interviewer: "And, it's...?"
    Bush: "General."


    ...who has an understanding of the different branches of the U.S. government.

    "The legislative's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret it."

    ...who does not have a simplistic, infantile view of the world.

    "When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us vs. them. And it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there."
Heck, America, you get my point: please choose a PRESIDENT with a substantial quantity of gray matter between his freakin' ears! And please don't tell me you don't have choices; you have plenty of choices.

Remember, the welfare of the world depends on it.


~PeterD

p.s. It's a tight race. I fear, though, that the BIBLE-FREAKS and INBREDS, let alone the hypocrites and fools, will come out in large numbers in some of the swing States, on November 2, and hand Bush the Presidency. :shock:

p.p.s. Does anyone doubt that I don't like the Bush clan? :)
Last edited by PeterD on Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:41 am

Let's not get TOO excited here, Mr. D.




The legislative's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret it."
Wow, where'd you get that from?

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:46 am

:(

Please, Peter, choose one of these fine web sites:
the next time you're in a mood for a political outburst you find yourself incapable of containing. These sites are actually dedicated to that topic.

I believe the freepers (Free Republic), in particular, will respond with gratifying enthusiam to your commentary on the inbreds and bible freaks.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:22 am

annis wrote::(

Please, Peter, choose one of these fine web sites:
the next time you're in a mood for a political outburst you find yourself incapable of containing. These sites are actually dedicated to that topic.

I believe the freepers (Free Republic), in particular, will respond with gratifying enthusiam to your commentary on the inbreds and bible freaks.
Although I was being honest in my assessment of Bush having locked in the 'you-know-what' vote, I was over the top. I apologize. You may completely remove the post if you wish. That's cool with me.

William, I don't know what got into me. I had just completed the translation exercises in Pharr (Lesson 20), and I decided to take a break and catch up on international news before I would post my answers for verification on the Pharr board. There I was reading about the latest incursion of the American financed Israei army into a GAZA refugee camp, and how this Israeli commander had emptied his American financed magazine of bullets into this ALREADY DEAD (by Israeli fire)young Palestinian girl. I guess the Israeli commander was trying to make some point. The American government had nothing to say on the matter, except that Israel was acting -- 'as usual' -- in self defense. Anyway, I got a 'little' upset about the story (on CNN), especially since I am going to be the proud father of a baby girl in a couple of weeks. Again, I apologize.

William, tell me -- how do you know about the above mentioned sites? Do you ever visit them? I took a quick tour. Not bad.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Re: PLEASE, AMERICA, CHOOSE A PRESIDENT...

Post by Rhuiden » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:31 am

PeterD wrote:p.s. It's a tight race. I fear, though, that the BIBLE-FREAKS and INBREDS, let alone the hypocrites and fools, will come out in large numbers in some of the swing States, on November 2, and hand Bush the Presidency. :shock:
First, let me say that most people would consider me to be one of the "Bible-Freaks". I believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallable, complete and perfect word of God. I believe that God came to earth in the form of a man (Jesus) and willingly gave Himself as sacrifice in atonement for my (as well as everyone else's) sins. I believe that He conquered death on the third day and that He lives still today. I believe that He has commanded me, and all who believe in Him, to tell others what He has done for me. If anyone has questions, I would be more than happy to discuss privately.

Having said all that, I also believe that it is the duty of all Christians to participate in all governmental functions. We should vote, run for office, support candidates, discuss issues, etc. If we do not, then we are not honoring God. Far to many Christians use the excuse that "we are in the world but not of the world" to not participate because they are afraid someone will ask them to defend what they say they believe. I am a Southern Baptist and there are about 16 million (last I heard) members of our denomination and I don't know how many will actually vote but I fear it will be a small number.

Now for a few questions, Why do you not want "Bible-freaks" to excercise our constitutional right? Is it that you simply don't agree with our position on issues or are you afraid that we are actually in the majority in this country? I heard a study reported a while back that said that approximately 80% of Americans "claim" to be Christian. The same study said that only about 40-45% attend church regularly (defined as once per month, I don't consider this regular attendance. I went to church twice just today). I think this may be causing some to think they are dealing with a Christian when they are actually not. I am curious as to how you got your negative impression of Christians. Unfortunately, there are many stories of so-called Christians that non-believers can point to as their reason for distrust or ill will.

My intention is not to turn this into a debate about religion (although I enjoy debating it) but I could not leave my fellow "Bible-freaks" and myself undefended.

FELLOW "BIBLE-FREAKS", IT IS OUR DUTY TO VOTE. PLEASE DO SO AND SEE THAT EVERYONE YOU KNOW VOTES ALSO.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:35 am

I am going to be the proud father of a baby girl in a couple of weeks
Congrats,

I have two daughters (8 and 4) myself and being a father is one of the biggest joys of a man's life.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:09 am

Rhuiden, to explain why people such as yourself provoke hostility from people such as PeterD: You believe in certain rules because of your religious persuasion. Many other people share these same views. However, as you point out, not all of them let it affect their voting patterns. Why not? Because to push rules, which you only believe in because of your religion, onto other people is equivalent to forcing the religion itself onto them.

You may rationalise this by the belief that you’re just voting for one of yourselves. However, is this in itself not prejudiced?

The truth is it’s not about voting in one of yourselves, Jimmy Carter proved that. It’s about voting in a leader who’ll turn your religious rules into law, leaving other people unable to make their own decisions based on their own religious and philosophical views.


If you lived in Saudi Arabia, and had to live by the Wahabi’s rules just because the house of Saud is in power, you’d be hostile too.
phpbb

Mongoose42
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:48 pm
Location: Green Bay,WI

Post by Mongoose42 » Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:34 pm

Eureka wrote: You believe in certain rules because of your religious persuasion. Many other people share these same views. However, as you point out, not all of them let it affect their voting patterns. Why not? Because to push rules, which you only believe in because of your religion, onto other people is equivalent to forcing the religion itself onto them.
Is it wrong to support a rule that you learned from your religion, but has the potential to benefit society as a whole.

I believe that complete liberalization of the public school system is wrong not only because of my religious beliefs, but also because I know the negative effect it will have on the following generations.
phpbb

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:36 pm

Rhuiden, I don't know what your political views are exactly, but the reason Peter and many others get the impression that 'religious-freaks' are well, freaks is because of some opinions that you read all too often. Peter probably visits other websites too, and for some reason the presidential election is one the hottest topics on nearly all the websites I visit, bar one, where the hottest topic is whether the Japanese have a good music taste or not. And some of the posts you read in those discussions make you want to find a club and bash your head with it.
e.g.: http://www.sc4ever.com/forums/messages. ... oupcode=97
IT IS HEDONISTIC! Get a dictionary. This is not an attack on the person. Just because someone does something morally wrong (hedonistic sex) doesn't mean she is an absolute waste of humanity.
He was making these comments to show his view on homosexual marriage. Ask yourself why a couple gets married. It is an acknowledgement that the couple is acting as one and their relationship is not selfish, but used to procreate. Since there is NO chance of this in gay marriage, Keyes doesn't support it.
You don't just get married for giggles. You get married to create and raise a family. Otherwise, there is no point to marriage. So, I cannot see a reason for gay marriage.
Like people only get married so they can have kids, yeah, this guy so like knows about reality or love :roll: .
At first I laughed my head off about all this, but then it makes you sad when you think about it and for some reason angry too. If one guy posts a thread like that, then, well I tend to think that most people who believe in the same book he does might have similar views, if only because they all claim that their belief is only what it says in that book.

Anyway, I think I would be very glad if more Christians went out to vote (didn't know they didn't), because they can't actually support Bush and his war that would be unchristian. I think Peter should have realised that the Christians around the world have been against this war and so it should be them he should be counting on.

And Peter, you could just have posted this in one of the many threads you've already started on the topic :wink: .
phpbb

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:19 pm

What's wrong with is our children learning; he's just trying to gain the support of the blacks.
phpbb

tdominus
Textkit Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:15 pm
Location: Terra Australis
Contact:

Post by tdominus » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:08 pm

I'm just curious: Why is it that leftist students have such hatred towards Christianity?

I don't think it is about "forcing beliefs" because they do exactly the same thing, albeit with a more adolescent tone.

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:26 pm

Emma_85 wrote: Anyway, I think I would be very glad if more Christians went out to vote (didn't know they didn't), because they can't actually support Bush and his war that would be unchristian. I think Peter should have realised that the Christians around the world have been against this war and so it should be them he should be counting on.
Good people of any decent religious persuasion oppose the Iraqi war, what is going on in the Occupied Territories, and any other horrible confict. I am a Greek Orthodox Christian. I say this --not that it matters in any way -- lest anyone thinks I am a non Christian picking on Christianity (I am definitely not picking on Christianity nor would I pick on anyone's religion) or that I don't have any understanding of Christianity (I have read the works of the Greek fathers). That said, I simply cannot reconcile some of the views of the Christian right in the US with Christ's teachings of love. They, along with the neoconservative cabal in Washington, are holding the most powerful nation hostage to their whimsical and simplistic views, and that is a very dangerous thing. I believe that someone who truly adheres to the teachings of Christ would vehemently oppose the brutal poilicies of the current administration.

I'll get back to the discussion later. I especially want to answer Rhuiden's reply. In the meantime, I must run if I still want to have a job!
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:31 pm

Ah, I didn't realise you were Christian, your post did make it sound a bit like you were bashing all Christians, even if that is not what you said. It might have helped if you'd said that straight away to avoid offending any Christians.
phpbb

User avatar
Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID
Contact:

Re: PLEASE, AMERICA, CHOOSE A PRESIDENT...

Post by Kopio » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:31 pm

PeterD wrote:p.s. It's a tight race. I fear, though, that the BIBLE-FREAKS and INBREDS, let alone the hypocrites and fools, will come out in large numbers in some of the swing States, on November 2, and hand Bush the Presidency.
Peter, I am disappointed in you. I think that you are perfectly entitled to your opinions, however the fact that you lump "Bible-Freaks" and "Inbreds" together is extremely disappointing. It is especially disappointing from a person who I believe would want to "honor diversity".

While I am not planning on voting for Kerry (who is the only candidate other than Bush that stands a ghosts of a chance), if he is elected (and I hope he is not) I will do my DUTY as a Bible Believing Christian (AKA Bible-Freak), to support and PRAY for my President. The Apostle Paul exhorts us in Romans to pray for our government because they have been placed in their position by the sovereignty of God.

I do not agree politically with you, or many other Democrats. But I refuse to call you names and poke fun at you. Frankly Peter, I expected more from you, your posts usually make me chuckle, this one however, I did not find amusing.

I believe an apology is in order to all the "Bible Freaks" and "Inbreds" that belong to the forum.

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:36 pm

Rhuiden, I don't know what your political views are exactly
I am as conservative as they come. In fact, I don't personally know anyone who is more conservative than I am. I am sure they are around but I don't personally know any.
Rhuiden, to explain why people such as yourself provoke hostility from people such as PeterD: You believe in certain rules because of your religious persuasion. Many other people share these same views. However, as you point out, not all of them let it affect their voting patterns. Why not? Because to push rules, which you only believe in because of your religion, onto other people is equivalent to forcing the religion itself onto them.
I do not agree with this, everyone is free to worship the way the see fit. If you follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, then no laws could be made because you would be forcing someones values on others.
Good people of any decent religious persuasion oppose the Iraqi war
On what basis do you make this statement PeterD? Jesus did teach Love be he also taught so much more. Do you remember the story of the money changers in the temple? Jesus saw a wrong and he used force to put an end to it (I know there is much more that could be discussed about this story but I am trying to simplify it). Jesus could have only spoken and they would have moved, why did he choose to physically move them? Jesus taught the the meek shall inherit the earth but meekness does not mean weakness.

Final question: Why are only Christians singled out and criticized for trying to reach others? Why are Christians not allowed to voice their opinion without being accused to closemindedness or something worse? Seems like a double standard to me.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:56 pm

Oh, believe me it's not only Christians, you must be getting it wrong! I mean, Christians can be annoying sometimes and have done great wrong in the past, but for the most part it's Islam that is doing damage now. I don't want to offend all Christians or all Muslims, but in every religion you find those who take religion too far. Here where I live there is a group of Christians who don't let their daughters go to normal schools but dress them up in clothes that look like grey potato sacks and send them to a religious school of one of their churches. There I bet you anything, they don't learn about evolution nor about many other things. No one here knows much about these people, they keep to themselves, their kids don't play with others, they hardly even seem to be able to talk German. I see them sometimes on the bus. I also see exactly the same with Muslims. Fanatics are the same what ever the religion. Their kids don't really have the choice to believe something else. My parents are Atheists, but still they didn't stick me in a special atheist school or anything, I went to Sunday school and to the local evangelical junior school. Later at school they didn't say anything when I choose religious studies instead of ethics (I changed to ethics after two years after I was sure that I didn't believe in any Gods). There are people in my class with every religious parents who let their kids believe what they want, but I've heard of cases in my school where the parents tried to force their children to stay in the religion classes. I suppose it is hard for someone who believes that if you don't believe you end up in hell for all of eternity. Atheists don't believe that you'll end up in hell if you believe in God. The stakes are lower you see, so religious people are naturally more uh... 'aggressive' when it comes to making sure people they love (and Christianity says to love everyone) believe the 'right' thing.
And after being shouted at and told that I'll go to hell a few times I've had it about up to hear with Christians, sorry to have to say so. Actually the only religious people who have not said I'll go to hell are a Jew I know and the Muslims, but then again I don't think I've met any fanatical Muslims, but as I said I have met a few fanatical Christians. Not saying there are more Christian fanatics, it's just that I live in a mainly Christian country so naturally there are more around, and so naturally it's those fanatics I meet, not those of any other religion.
phpbb

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:08 pm

tdominus wrote:I'm just curious: Why is it that leftist students have such hatred towards Christianity?

I don't think it is about "forcing beliefs" because they do exactly the same thing, albeit with a more adolescent tone.
Liberals do not hate Christianity, in fact, most liberals in the U.S. are Christians.

I'm sorry that PeterD used the word "freak," it was unfortunate, but you should keep in mind that we liberals are described with all sorts of ugly language all the time by conservative Christians. Conservative Christians are often in deep denial about the tone of their own statements.
Rhuiden wrote:Final question: Why are only Christians singled out and criticized for trying to reach others? Why are Christians not allowed to voice their opinion without being accused to closemindedness or something worse? Seems like a double standard to me.
Reminder, to everybody: John Kerry is a Christian. So was Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter was a Baptist minister. Chances are about 99.99% that the next U.S. president will be a Christian.

http://www.free-definition.com/List-of- ... tions.html

"Christian" does not equal "conservative." The majority of Americans are Christians, but only a minority are conservative. (Some of you will not agree with that assertion, but I assert it nonetheless.)

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 pm

Democritus wrote:Reminder, to everybody: John Kerry is a Christian. So was Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter was a Baptist minister. Chances are about 99.99% that the next U.S. president will be a Christian.
I can say that I am a professional basketball player but if my actions do not back that up then everyone will see that I am not telling the truth. John Kerry is Catholic but his own bishop said he would refuse to give Kerry communion because his political views are inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic church. Bill Clinton claimed to be Southern Baptist but the things he supported and stood for were not consistent with the positions of the Southern Baptist (I know because I am a Southern Baptist). Jimmy Carter may have been a good man but he was an inept president.
Liberals do not hate Christianity, in fact, most liberals in the U.S. are Christians.
I must disagree with this. I can't see how anyone who claims to be a Christian could also claim to be liberal. The two positions are completely opposed to each other.

Rhuiden

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:50 pm

Rhuiden wrote:John Kerry is Catholic but his own bishop said he would refuse to give Kerry communion because his political views are inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic church.
John Kerry is just as much of a Christian as you are, Rhuiden. I don't care what that Bishop says. Catholic bishops preach a long list of things which you, as a Baptist, probably don't agree with, but you still think of yourself as a Christian. Why should Kerry be different from you? When I was a Catholic, I had no problems in disagreeing with certain things the Bishops taught. That didn't make me unchristian.
Rhuiden wrote:
Liberals do not hate Christianity, in fact, most liberals in the U.S. are Christians.
I must disagree with this. I can't see how anyone who claims to be a Christian could also claim to be liberal. The two positions are completely opposed to each other.
I have trouble even imagining how a person "completely opposed" to Christianity would behave or think. They would certainly be no liberal.

Rhuiden, I don't know you, but I think you may be demonizing liberals, in your own head. There may be some liberal ideas which you firmly reject, but you know, some Christians firmly reject your ideas, too. Would it be fair for us to claim that you are "completely opposed" to Christianity?

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: PLEASE, AMERICA, CHOOSE A PRESIDENT...

Post by PeterD » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:25 pm

Kopio wrote:Peter, I am disappointed in you...Frankly Peter, I expected more from you, your posts usually make me chuckle, this one however, I did not find amusing.

I believe an apology is in order to all the "Bible Freaks" and "Inbreds" that belong to the forum.
Yes, I was wrong and do apologize for using the you-know-what terms. It was a spur of the moment posting. There was no need for such belittling language.

But, like I said to William, I had just read this awful news account of how this very young (10 or 12 years old, I think) Palestinian girl's already dead body was riddled with bullets by an Israeli commander who saw it necessary, having killed her moments before, to desecrate her body as well. That story upset me very much, especially when such horrid events could be prevented if the US administration did not give carte blanche to the brutal Sharon government.

That's why I posted the topic about choosing a decent, educated, good man/woman to be president. I meant no harm. However, the postscript aside, I did not say any untruths.

Anyway, the election will be over in a couple of weeks. The American people will deserve the government they will have chosen: Bush or Bush lite (Kerry); the rest of the world will suffer for it. And I -- I will be the proud father of a baby girl by then. :D

Again, my sincerest apologies, especially to those folks having an extra set of chromosomes (just kidding :P ).

~PeterD

p.s.
Episcopus wrote: What's wrong with is our children learning; he's just trying to gain the black vote.

Episcopus, you get away with murder sometimes. Wait till William sees it.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: PLEASE, AMERICA, CHOOSE A PRESIDENT...

Post by PeterD » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:46 pm

Rhuiden wrote: First, let me say that most people would consider me to be one of the "Bible-Freaks".
Rhuiden, I am truly sorry for using that term.
"BIBLE-FREAKS", IT IS OUR DUTY TO VOTE. PLEASE DO SO AND SEE THAT EVERYONE YOU KNOW VOTES ALSO.
That's right. Don't forget to vote on November 3rd. :wink:

Take care,

~PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:22 pm

Rhuiden wrote:
Rhuiden, to explain why people such as yourself provoke hostility from people such as PeterD: You believe in certain rules because of your religious persuasion. Many other people share these same views. However, as you point out, not all of them let it affect their voting patterns. Why not? Because to push rules, which you only believe in because of your religion, onto other people is equivalent to forcing the religion itself onto them.
I do not agree with this, everyone is free to worship the way the see fit. If you follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, then no laws could be made because you would be forcing someones values on others.
Worship is personal, laws are collective. Since when does “worship” involve using the government to force your beliefs onto other people?

You should recognise your own fallibility on the question of religion. You might be wrong, others may be right. What right do you have, then, to force other people to abide by your religious rules?

As for following that reasoning to its conclusion, there is a difference between religious and non-religious laws. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish them, but it is usually possible to tell which is which. (Since you probably relate all morally back to your religion, this distinction may appear to be artifical. However, not all people relate their morality to a religious code.)

If people use the mechanisms of democracy to push their religion (or to stifle others’) then they threaten the stability of their society. The tyranny of the many over the few can’t be justified by reference to either religion or democracy.
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:38 am

Eureka wrote:You should recognise your own fallibility on the question of religion. You might be wrong, others may be right. What right do you have, then, to force other people to abide by your religious rules?

As for following that reasoning to its conclusion, there is a difference between religious and non-religious laws. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish them, but it is usually possible to tell which is which. (Since you probably relate all morally back to your religion, this distinction may appear to be artifical. However, not all people relate their morality to a religious code.)

If people use the mechanisms of democracy to push their religion (or to stifle others’) then they threaten the stability of their society. The tyranny of the many over the few can’t be justified by reference to either religion or democracy.
I did not say that I had it all figured out. Actually, the Bible teaches that there was only one perfect man to ever walk the earth. I know that I am not that man (His name was Jesus, in case anyone did not know). I also did not say that I had a right to force my beliefs on anyone else but a society, as a whole, has the right to make laws that reflects the desires of the majority. The US was founded as a Christian nation and even though it is hard to tell it today, our laws should be able to reflect that.

You are correct, I filter everything through the teachings of the Bible. I see things as black and white. Many may say that makes me simple minded, that is ok, it is their opinion. Let me also take a moment to say that I am not "Super Christian". I sin every day (just as everyone does) but by the Grace of God I have been forgiven.

I am curious what a non-religious law is. Where does morality come from if not from a "religious code"? The great thing about our country is that if someone does not agree with something, they can work to get it changed and if they can convince enough people that they are right, they can change it. It is my position that ALL morality comes from a religious code, people simply choose whether or not to follow the teachings of their religion.

Another point I would like to make is this. You said that using democracy to push religion on people would threaten the stability of their society. I would agree with this if the religion being pushed is not the religion of the society. If the religion of the society is the one being pushed by the democracy, then the stability of the society would be strengthed not weakened. An example is the American society today, we have great instability. It is not because Christian principles are being "pushed" but that they are not being allowed to be "pushed" by a few (mostly activist judges who want to make law rather than interpret it).

My last question is this: Can it really be called tyranny if it is the many (society) are implementing their beliefs over the few who object? I thought tyranny was the few dominating the many but I may be wrong (I did not take the time to look up the definition).
John Kerry is just as much of a Christian as you are, Rhuiden
That may be true Democritus. Only God and Kerry know for sure. I should have stated my point better. It is: To be a Christian, one must have accepted Jesus to be Lord of their life. When they do, Jesus begins to remake them to resemble Himself. His desires and habits become theirs. Their actions and thoughts are changed and the change becomes evident to those around them. They still have free will and will continue to sin but they no longer want to. They choices they make are based on what Jesus wants or would do. When I look at Kerry's voting record, I can't see this change. I only have to look at his positon on child sacrifice (abortion) to see what is in his heart. I believe it would be very hard for a Christian to take the position he has. I make me very sad that people actually believe as he does, but that is another discussion.

Rhuiden

chiggles
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Madison, WI

Post by chiggles » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:58 am

Rhuiden wrote:I believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallable, complete and perfect word of God.
I am not saying this is not the case, but are you referring to just the Torah (Pentetauch [Five Books of Moses]), the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), Old Testament (Christianized ordering of the Tanakh), these including the NT, or just the NT? Is there a specific translation of these which you prefer? If so, are you aware of the different MSS which make up this version, and which textual variants it places preference on, and in turn those it omits?
I do apologize if I am being a tad inquisitive or something akin to such, but I wonder how out of the many variations in the NT manuscripts, one can come to an absolute certainty as to which of these is the "complete and perfect word of God." Nevermind the synoptic problem.

Although I know you would not call me Christian (anything beyond the four gospels gets to be a bit dogmatic, IMO), I have nothing wrong with Christians (or any other ideological belief system) on a whole. As long as they 1.) do not throw logic out of the window 2.) cause harm or put restrictions upon others.
And this is where things start bothering me, primarily with Christians. It's abortion, I must say. I have met numerous of them who will vote for Bush for one reason alone. He's of the "it's a life, not a choice" school. This I can accept if it's not being imposed on an entire nation. Pro life but pro war, makes sense...

While governer of Texas, Bush had both the highest amount of prisoners on Death Row, and the highest execution rate in America. To think that every last person executed was guilty is wrong (Gary Graham).

I'm not going to get into the reasons for the war, but the latest statistics for American deaths lies at 1101. Contrast this to Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq, which lies somewhere between 13278 and 15357. Mind you, that says Civilians. So, for every 1 of our soldiers we have lost, there have been approximately 13 civilian casualties. This, along with our support of Sharon (as PeterD has mentioned), our dealings in Colombia, our attempt at demonizing Chavez and controlling Venezualean media and getting somebody into presidency who would be more willing to part with oil, just to name a few.

Sorry for the digression. Now, I'm not a fan of Kerry (lesser of two evils [more like has yet to be determined]), I agree with what PeterD had to say: "Anyway, the election will be over in a couple of weeks. The American people will deserve the government they will have chosen: Bush or Bush lite (Kerry); the rest of the world will suffer for it."
However, about Kerry, his take on abortion, some may not care for it, but some are rather fond. Here's some of his words:
''I oppose abortion, personally," Kerry told a reporter for an Iowa newspaper. ''I don't like abortion. I believe life begins at conception."
He continued: ''But I don't take my Catholic beliefs, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant, on a Jew, or an atheist, who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."
Makes me think of when Michael Moore was in town Saturday night, speaking of what will happen when the majority (Democrats) win the election this Nov. stated "we will not allow the long arm of government to touch a woman's reproductive organs." I am a firm believer in this, the same should go for the long arm of religion, or whatever else it may be that inhibits one's freedoms.

I guess my question is, how do you justify your support of somebody whom is anti abortion, yet pro war, and pro death penalty (both of which have caused the death of innocents)? Rhuiden, if you wish to respond to this privately feel free to do so, but I think these are questions that have answers that others may have interest in, too.

Did not mean to offend (if in fact this has happened), and to the rest of you, sorry that I haven't participated much in any forum yet (waiting for Pharr-B to start up).

Image

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:14 am

chiggles wrote:However, about Kerry, his take on abortion, some may not care for it, but some are rather fond. Here's some of his words:
''I oppose abortion, personally," Kerry told a reporter for an Iowa newspaper. ''I don't like abortion. I believe life begins at conception."
He continued: ''But I don't take my Catholic beliefs, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant, on a Jew, or an atheist, who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."
Makes me think of when Michael Moore was in town Saturday night, speaking of what will happen when the majority (Democrats) win the election this Nov. stated "we will not allow the long arm of government to touch a woman's reproductive organs." I am a firm believer in this, the same should go for the long arm of religion, or whatever else it may be that inhibits one's freedoms.

I guess my question is, how do you justify your support of somebody whom is anti abortion, yet pro war, and pro death penalty (both of which have caused the death of innocents)? Rhuiden, if you wish to respond to this privately feel free to do so, but I think these are questions that have answers that others may have interest in, too.
First, no offense taken. These discussions, while they have little effect in changing anyone's mind, are very enjoyable to me. As you can tell, I am not shy about sharing my opinion.

I believe Kerry's position on abortion is indefensible. If you believe life begins at conception, then is it not murder to kill that life. I believe it is. What say does the child have in the decision? None. Many women use abortion as a means of contraception...THIS IS WRONG!!!! If they do not want a child, give it up for adoption. Others say that life does not begin at conception so the woman is only removing a "tissue mass". HOW SAD. Look at an ultrasound of the "tissue mass" after only a few weeks and tell me what you see. How about partial-birth-abortion? Kerry voted against the bill to ban it...luckily there were enough votes to pass it. Bush signed it into law and now we have activist judges trying to declare it unconstitutional. WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMMING TO!!!

The quote about separation of church and state is a farce also. There is no clause in our constitution that creates this separation. It is only mentioned in a letter written by Jefferson (I think, may have the wrong founding father here). Judges have used it for years to legislate from the bench. It always seems that their legislation is left leaning, why is that. Because they cannot get their ideology implemented in the constitutional way.

Now, the pro-war and pro death penalty answers. It seems that you are trying to equate these things under the "You shall not murder" commandment. So this will be the basis for my response. I think that it is completely possible to pro-life, pro-war, and pro death penalty. This is my position also (in case there were any doubts). I believe the death penalty is necessary and should be used more often. I think it is biblical. In the Old Testiment, there was primarily one punishment for crimes...if you were found guilty, you were taken out and stoned. Noone sat in jail for 15 years on the taxpayers dime. This may sound radical but I think all executions should be carried out in full view of the general public. This would be a great deterent to future offenders. Also, it is not murder to kill an convicted criminal. I also know that some say that mistakes are made and innocent people are executed. I cannot speak to that, but I know that in our justice system there are ample opportunities for a death row inmate to prove his innocence. Now, as to the pro-war position. I believe that we are able to defend ourselves. God tells us to "turn the other cheek" and God is a God of love but He is also a God of vengence and justice. Many times in the Old Testiment, God used war to bring His judgement on the Isrealites as well as other nations. I am not saying that this war is God's judgement, I do not presume to speak to God's intentions or actions. My only point is that He allowed (sometimes commanded) the Isrealites to defend themselves when they were attacked. I also know that innocent people are killed in war...this is a terrible tragedy. We had approximately 3000 innocent people killed on 9/11. That does not justify the deaths of other innocent people but those that choose to stay in a war zone have chosen to take their chances. I am also curious where you got your figures for the innocents killed. How do we know that those were truly innocent? The number could have been manufactured or doctored by someone to fit their agenda.

Has this clarified my positions? If not, I will be happy to try again :)

Rhuiden

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:34 am

He allowed (sometimes commanded) the Isrealites to defend themselves when they were attacked.
Iraq=9/11=terrorist attacks... ?? Don't think so!
That does not justify the deaths of other innocent people but those that choose to stay in a war zone have chosen to take their chances.
That is unfeeling to say the least. A human being just does not get up and leave a house in which he has been born, raised, and grown up!! By your reasoning, all who are cought in a middle of a wrong war are rendered rightless of their lives.

I am also curious where you got your figures for the innocents killed. How do we know that those were truly innocent? The number could have been manufactured or doctored by someone to fit their agenda.
ANY fact can be cooked up. Examples found plenty in the Bush Admin rhetoric (Horrendous ause, if not torture, regularly, of prisoners in Guantanamo when the Pentagon had said 'high-level' interrogation tactics had been used only very sparingly)!
The number dead can be attributable to the Red Cross, the Iraqi Gov't etc.

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:53 am

classicalclarinet wrote:
That does not justify the deaths of other innocent people but those that choose to stay in a war zone have chosen to take their chances.
That is unfeeling to say the least. A human being just does not get up and leave a house in which he has been born, raised, and grown up!! By your reasoning, all who are cought in a middle of a wrong war are rendered rightless of their lives.

I agree that on the surface my comment sounded unfeeling. When I was rereading my post before I submitted it, I considered taking it out but chose not to because I felt the point needed to be made. Now, there are countless examples of people fleeing warzones, they are know as refugees. It is not fair that they have to do this but they made a choice. That choice was: Which is more important, my life and the life of my family or staying in the house "in which he has been born, raised, and grown up". Lives are more precious that property. Property can be replaced, lives cannot. But some choose to stay and in so doing, they take their chances. This has nothing to do with taking away their right to life. I respect their choice and feel bad an innocent is killed. My point, though, is still valid.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:37 pm

Rhuiden wrote:The quote about separation of church and state is a farce also. There is no clause in our constitution that creates this separation.
What do you think the First Ammendment of the Constitution means?
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:54 pm

Amendment I

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.
What here requires the separation of church and state?

Rhuiden

User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:17 pm

Rhuiden wrote:
Amendment I
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.
What here requires the separation of church and state?

Rhuiden
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:51 pm

Timothy wrote:
Rhuiden wrote:
Amendment I
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.
What here requires the separation of church and state?

Rhuiden
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
This clause only means that Congress cannot establish a state sponsored religion. The example would be King Henry (I am not sure if this is the correct kimg or not) who broke ties with the Roman Catholic church and established his own state sponsored church so he could divorce his wife.

It in no way establishes a separation of Church and State.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:33 pm

This clause only means that Congress cannot establish a state sponsored religion. The example would be King Henry (I am not sure if this is the correct kimg or not) who broke ties with the Roman Catholic church and established his own state sponsored church so he could divorce his wife.
King Henry VIII. (during Erasmus' life)

Henry's desire for a divorce was only a part of the reason there. This was a desire to break away from the "rule from afar" of Rome and the Pope.

So the clause here prohibits Congress from only one law:

"The Religion of the U.S. is: X"

They can pass other laws though:

- only christian churches are exempt from taxes.
- all schools, private and public, will begin and end each class with the christian prayer M.
- all public meetings will be presided over by a christian minister.
- no law will take effect until approved by the council of christian bishops.
- all money will have the 10 commandments printed on it.

I think you would agree that more than one law is being proscribed here. That means that the clause applys to any law which has the effect of establishing a religion. As the clause doesn't specify a particular religion, all religions are included.

edit: embarassing typo. :oops:
phpbb

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:52 pm

chiggles wrote:As long as they 1.) do not throw logic out of the window 2.) cause harm or put restrictions upon others.
Well said.

As far as am concerned, a good, decent human being has nothing to worry about, whether he/she believes in God(s) or not. I would think that a God who created us would love us all equally, just like a good parent loves his/her children equally. If I may quote Socrates, Plato's Apology, 41c,

οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνδρὶ ἀγαθῷ κακὸν οὐδὲν οὔτε ζῶντι οὔτε τελευτήσαντι, οὐδὲ ἀμελεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν τὰ τούτου πράγματα.

"No evil can happen to a good man, alive or dead; and never is he neglected by the gods."

I would also like to add that Rhuiden and I actually agree on something: we both love political discourse. And, yes, while it's unlikely that he or I will be pursuaded by the other's arguments, you just never know. Plus, like Rhuiden says, it is entertaining; and, after some heavy duty Greek or Latin study, I think we deserve it. Mind you, William says otherwise. :( But as he already pointed out, there are other sites for that. He is correct. William, bear with us for a couple of more weeks, until the day after the elections? I will definitely promise no more politics, not even Bill O'Reilly jokes. Heck, even if I wanted to opine politically, I wouldn't have the time. I will be too busy changing diapers. :shock:


~PeterD

p.s. I hope everything is cool with Kopio. :)
Last edited by PeterD on Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Post by Turpissimus » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:04 pm

not even Bill O'Reilly jokes?
There is a vein of sick humour here which I fear to mine. Falafels, loofahs, and ... the other stuff. It's always the uptight respectable ones, isn't it?

....heh heh... felafels...
phpbb

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:19 pm

Turpissimus wrote:
not even Bill O'Reilly jokes.
There is a vein of sick humour here which I fear to mine. Falafels, loofahs, and ... the other stuff. It's always the uptight respectable ones, isn't it?

....heh heh... felafels...
True, very true. You would think, Turpissimus, he would have the decency to pay for it, since he obviously can afford it, instead of going after the hired help. I can just see O'Reilly staring into the camera, a la Bill clinton, declaring, "I did not have sex with that vibrator!" :wink:
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:08 pm

Timothy wrote:I think you would agree that more than one law is being proscribed here. That means that the clause applies to any law which has the effect of establishing a religion. As the clause doesn't specify a particular religion, all religions are included.
Yes, of course this is correct. Separation of church and state is written right there into the constitution.

Unfortunately there are some people in the U.S. who don't like this law and want to go ahead and establish evangelicalism as the official religion.

Well, I'm against them, and I'm with Jefferson.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm
Thomas Jefferson wrote:The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).
Thomas Jefferson wrote:History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
Thomas Jefferson wrote:In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).
Interesting exchange here, too: http://fact.trib.com/1st.jeffers.2.html . Jefferson himself uses the phrase "wall of separation between church and State."

User avatar
Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID
Contact:

Post by Kopio » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:27 pm

PeterD wrote:p.s. I hope everything is cool with Kopio. :)
Yes Peter....everything is cool with Kopio.....apology gladly accepted.

I have to be careful too....I'm very skilled at name-calling and belittling people I disagree with, and in my flippant day to day talk I have to truly watch myself. I can be quite pompous. However, when I am on a forum, especially one that I consider fairly "scholarly" (although our conversations range all over the place) I try to keep the ad hominems to a minimum.

All of us "Bible Freaks" and "Inbreds" thank you for doing the same (especially my 6-toed cousin Bubba :lol: )!

No hard feelings.

User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy » Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:11 am

Jefferson provides support for the so-called evangelical:
...(T)o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;
Presents a rather strange picture of different parts of the nation funding different laws for different reasons. There's a real problem in there; the prosperous sections of the nation having significant advantage over the less prosperous. That is a separate issue, though.

Hopefully I've been able to clarify the principle of separation of Church and State as an integral part of the Constitution and not as some sort of radical interpretation. It is a limitation on the powers of the government more than anything else. The government can neither support nor inhibit religion by law. Doing so is harmful to everybody, on all sides.

But that's for the government.

For the individual,* act like a christian; don't legislate christianity.

*religious substitution where appropriate
phpbb

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:37 am

PeterD wrote:
As far as am concerned, a good, decent human being has nothing to worry about, whether he/she believes in God(s) or not. I would think that a God who created us would love us all equally, just like a good parent loves his/her children equally. If I may quote Socrates, Plato's Apology, 41c,

οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνδρὶ ἀγαθῷ κακὸν οὐδὲν οὔτε ζῶντι οὔτε τελευτήσαντι, οὐδὲ ἀμελεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν τὰ τούτου πράγματα.

"No evil can happen to a good man, alive or dead; and never is he neglected by the gods."
In addition to Plato, check out Malachi (1:1-3)

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:20 am

Timothy wrote:The government can neither support nor inhibit religion by law.
I completely agree with this statement. But the point remains that nothing in the Constitution prohibits religions from being part of the government. Only activist judges have done that and they do not have the power to legislate from the bench. Before anyone blows a gasket, I know that is exactly what is happening today but it only because Congress has chosen not to fulfill their constitutional duty. It is easier for them, it gives them an excuse and someone to blame. The activist judges can implement the liberal idealogy and are not accountable to anyone. That is another discussion.

One other very important point, when religion is removed from government, morality is removed also. Do we really want to be governed (ruled) by a government with no moral basis? I sure don't.
Democritus wrote:Unfortunately there are some people in the U.S. who don't like this law and want to go ahead and establish evangelicalism as the official religion.
Equally sad is that there are those who wish to establish atheism as the official religion. Unfortunately, they seem to be winning now.

Rhuiden

Post Reply