Sign in to follow this  
NOS2006

Who Wants To Help Me

48 posts in this topic

loki    286

the constitution has liberty at it's heart. freedoms in the bill of rights are supposed to be protected by government, and ensured to all citizens. and the constitution was written to limit government. politicians swear to uphold and protect the constitution when they come into office. many , many politicians have not held to this pledge.

about the founders not being religious... give proof, it's like huckabee saying they were preachers, it's vague enough to maybe be true, but finding evidence to support that... will you actually take time to do that?

and besides, the principals the founders put into the Declaration and Constitution are intended to be catholic. ( little C for a reason, look it up ) but also the idea of self governing, on the individual level, is best, is backed by Catholic doctrine. I'm not telling you to convert, just saying that if religion backs the principals of this country (not individual views), is it to be denied they had any influence in the construction of these documents we should hold dearly to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Camino LS6    866

Documents like the Magna Carta and the US Constitution can certainly trace their roots back to the 10 Commandments in a very elemental way.

The genius of the Constitution however, was to form our government as a secular entity.

A guarantee of religious freedom requires that no religion be endorsed or have undue influence.

Many have forgotten that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the constitution has liberty at it's heart. freedoms in the bill of rights are supposed to be protected by government, and ensured to all citizens. and the constitution was written to limit government. politicians swear to uphold and protect the constitution when they come into office. many , many politicians have not held to this pledge.

about the founders not being religious... give proof, it's like huckabee saying they were preachers, it's vague enough to maybe be true, but finding evidence to support that... will you actually take time to do that?

and besides, the principals the founders put into the Declaration and Constitution are intended to be catholic. ( little C for a reason, look it up ) but also the idea of self governing, on the individual level, is best, is backed by Catholic doctrine. I'm not telling you to convert, just saying that if religion backs the principals of this country (not individual views), is it to be denied they had any influence in the construction of these documents we should hold dearly to?

It makes me nervous when our Freedoms are supposed to be protected by GOVERNMENT, I feel more comfortable with an armed citizenry protecting them.

Also catholic being universal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loki    286
It makes me nervous when our Freedoms are supposed to be protected by GOVERNMENT, I feel more comfortable with an armed citizenry protecting them.

Also catholic being universal.

good job.

i was just thinking.... why does anyone even bring up if the founders were religious or not. it doesn't matter. the documents they wrote have created the most powerful, free, and diverse country the world has now.

supposedly the persian empire was quite free and prosperous (before they made the mistake of taking on the greeks). romans had quite some freedom for their time. if we don't stop waging war when we're not attacked, we're going to end up like these past empires. "we've" become divided, apathetic, and uncaring. when will enough of the public take note of this and demand change in unison. I hope this happens soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Camino LS6    866
good job.

i was just thinking.... why does anyone even bring up if the founders were religious or not. it doesn't matter. the documents they wrote have created the most powerful, free, and diverse country the world has now.

supposedly the persian empire was quite free and prosperous (before they made the mistake of taking on the greeks). romans had quite some freedom for their time. if we don't stop waging war when we're not attacked, we're going to end up like these past empires. "we've" become divided, apathetic, and uncaring. when will enough of the public take note of this and demand change in unison. I hope this happens soon.

Very valid question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
avant1963    38
about the founders not being religious... give proof, it's like huckabee saying they were preachers, it's vague enough to maybe be true, but finding evidence to support that... will you actually take time to do that?
It really doesn't take much searching to prove that Huckabee is a liar:

Only one of the 56 was an active clergyman, and that was John Witherspoon. Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister and president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University).

A few more of the signers were former clergymen, though it's a little unclear just how many. The conservative Heritage Foundation said two other signers were former clergymen. The religion web site Adherents.com said four signers of the declaration were current or former full-time preachers. But everyone agrees only Witherspoon was an active minister when he signed the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/137/

Other than the fact that many of the founding fathers were Deists, the Treaty of Tripoli is usually the "written" source (other than the statement "separation of church and state". How much CLEARER can that be.) for proof that the US was not a "Christian" nation, but a secular one.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do Democrats and Republicans usually differ?

Democrats think that the individual is stupid, but as a whole,

collectivelly we make smarter better choices. (socialist mentality)

They tend to be bleeding hearts and would like to help people

but often times just do stupid $h! like insist that GUNS kill people

and personal rights are less important than a safe government.

------

Republicans tend to think that as a whole, collectivelly our voice

is watered down and diluted, as a mob-metality we make stupid

choices, but the IDIVIDUAL tends to be smart and can make a

better choice without peer pressure.

However Republicans have thier problems, catering too much to

big business and such...

------

I myself err on the side of Republican but Bush is one of the

crappiest Republicans EVER. He is very un-Republican, esp.

with his lack of respect for the constitution and individual

liberties.

I'm a libertarian, but saddly seems our $h!ty government is

doomed (forced) into the REP/DEM duality, an independent no

matter how smart or popular can't make a breakthrough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loki    286

Clip of the SC debates where RP defends himself for "not being electable" and talks about what it means to be a "republican"

Other than the fact that many of the founding fathers were Deists, the Treaty of Tripoli is usually the "written" source (other than the statement "separation of church and state". How much CLEARER can that be.) for proof that the US was not a "Christian" nation, but a secular one.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

so it was a peace treaty. how is that supposed to overrule the freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loki    286
I myself err on the side of Republican but Bush is one of the

crappiest Republicans EVER. He is very un-Republican, esp.

with his lack of respect for the constitution and individual

liberties.

I'm a libertarian, but saddly seems our $h!ty government is

doomed (forced) into the REP/DEM duality, an independent no

matter how smart or popular can't make a breakthrough...

Being young and nieve about what bush's policies were about in 2004, i voted for him. it was a mistake, but we don't know what a kerry presidency would've brought.

we are forced into a "lesser of 2 evils" for president about >90 % of the time. (we've had...43 presidents, so i'd have to say washington wasn't one, but i couldn't vote for him.)

Edited by loki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Loki... Bush is useless & an a$$hole like most politicians,

...but compared to Al Gore he's cfuking Mother Theresa!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
avant1963    38
so it was a peace treaty. how is that supposed to overrule the freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion?

I don't think I understand what you're arguing here? Freedom of Religion MEANS freedom from Religion. NO government mandated religion (laws based on Christianity, or any other religion). If you don't want to be religious, you are free do do so. If you don't believe in a god, you are also free to do so. Why should I be a 3rd class citizen because I'm an atheist? I don't want you to teach religion in public schools (re Intelligent Design). You seem to have the Freedom of Religion idea a little messed up. Read some biographies of Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, etc to get a feel for what they really felt on Religion in government. There are some very interesting ideas there.

I would expect someone who is supporting a Libertarian in Republican clothing (Ron Paul) to believe in the whole "Government out of my bedroom/personal life" idea. That's the one Libertarian ideal I believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed Loki... Bush is useless & an a$$hole like most politicians,

...but compared to Al Gore he's cfuking Mother Theresa!!!

It would have been interesting to see how things would have gone this decade w/ Gore in office..much, much better, I think. Bush is a subliterate moron surrounded by corrupt henchmen, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Croc    268
about the founders not being religious... give proof, it's like huckabee saying they were preachers, it's vague enough to maybe be true, but finding evidence to support that... will you actually take time to do that?

Although Walt pretty much addressed it, that early treaty as well as the writings of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al are the evidence/proof. Many of the early founders were philosophers, and those writings lay things out pretty well. I cannot quote titles or page numbers, but I have read enough Franklin and Jefferson to eliminate any credence to the founders being Christian men intent on founding this country as a Christian-based nation.

As for your other point about Catholic doctrines and similarities to the US Constitution...well that would be more by coincidence than anything else. The United States based the Constitution on the Greek philosophers as well as many of the philosophers from their contemporary era. That's one of the reasons governmental architecture in the US is largely neoclassical--that was a conscious decision during the Columbian Exposition (Chicago World's Fair) to create an "American" architectural aesthetic--neoclassical styles were chosen for the direct lineage to the Greeks and their political democratic philosophies.

But we don't know what a kerry presidency would've brought.

True, but we never know what the unknown will bring. We DO know some of what a Kerry presidency would NOT have brought, however.

Edited by Croc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loki    286
I don't think I understand what you're arguing here? Freedom of Religion MEANS freedom from Religion. NO government mandated religion (laws based on Christianity, or any other religion). If you don't want to be religious, you are free do do so. If you don't believe in a god, you are also free to do so. Why should I be a 3rd class citizen because I'm an atheist? I don't want you to teach religion in public schools (re Intelligent Design). You seem to have the Freedom of Religion idea a little messed up. Read some biographies of Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, etc to get a feel for what they really felt on Religion in government. There are some very interesting ideas there.

I would expect someone who is supporting a Libertarian in Republican clothing (Ron Paul) to believe in the whole "Government out of my bedroom/personal life" idea. That's the one Libertarian ideal I believe in.

...well I think there is a slight difference in what i said. but it also can go along with the libertarian view. Nobody has the right to force you to be religious, ie your personal life. but some people think that freedom from religion means that there shouldn't be a tree in a public building in december, and other such things like that. you may not espouse that idea, but there are people sue-ing to have stuff removed from buildings that have been there for "a long time" and it's just a waste of tax money for that to happen. ...took that off topic...

let's compare it too.. freedom of speech and freedom from speech. do you think there's a difference of meaning in those statements?

*recently heard about the "realID $h!e"* *sigh, shakes head*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
avant1963    38
freedom of speech and freedom from speech

This is a little weird, but I would interpret that as " you have the right to express your opinions/speech and you have to right to turn off your radio/TV, not vote and keep your mouth shut and not express anything." No one forces us to vote or speak out. If voting was mandatory, then I think the freedom from speech would be shut down. You have the freedom to be apathetic and do nothing about it. So I guess it kind of works if I look at it that way.

A lot of the sue happy people aren't doing it for the principal, their just general trouble-makers and love it. I have no problem with a tree in a public building (hell, it's a Pagan tradition anyways, I put up a tree and celebrate Winter Solstice just like they did thousands of years ago) also long as there is a chance for other groups to add their "holiday traditions" also to the mix if it is asked. Just an "all things being equal" thing.

Personally, I think that all religions are nuts, but I'm not advocating the shutting down of churches... though I would like to talk about that "tax-exempt" BS. :AH-HA_wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Croc    268

Exactly. The Holiday Tree is fine. I know Jews who put up trees, they just decorate them with a Star of David. I believe, though, that public spaces and public buildings should treat all religions equally. If a place is celebrating Christian holidays, fine...but it must also observe the Jewish ones, Islamic, etc. to include ALL religions. That's daunting. So in treating all religions equally, I'd prefer not to have my tax dollars wasted on promoting/observing ANY religious holiday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loki    286
This is a little weird, but I would interpret that as " you have the right to express your opinions/speech and you have to right to turn off your radio/TV, not vote and keep your mouth shut and not express anything." No one forces us to vote or speak out. If voting was mandatory, then I think the freedom from speech would be shut down. You have the freedom to be apathetic and do nothing about it. So I guess it kind of works if I look at it that way.

A lot of the sue happy people aren't doing it for the principal, their just general trouble-makers and love it. I have no problem with a tree in a public building (hell, it's a Pagan tradition anyways, I put up a tree and celebrate Winter Solstice just like they did thousands of years ago) also long as there is a chance for other groups to add their "holiday traditions" also to the mix if it is asked. Just an "all things being equal" thing.

Personally, I think that all religions are nuts, but I'm not advocating the shutting down of churches... though I would like to talk about that "tax-exempt" BS. :AH-HA_wink:

yes, you have that power when it consists of your ability to move or turn off something, your will. but what if someone was in a public park speaking about something you cared not to listen to, but you had to be there for some reason (couldn't get away from it, ie loud speakers or something) freedom from speech would allow you to shut the speaker up, freedom of speech means unless the person is disturbing the peace or other laws, there should be nothing you can do about it. does this make sense?

yes, the tree has pagan origin and christians put Christmas on the 25th, the julain calander day of the solstice, to "replace" that festival for converting pagans. if it's reasonable, including others is fine. reasonable as in not dress up public buildings/areas like some decorating fanatics. lol

tax exempt is bs, cause the irs shouldn't exist. at least not in times like these, the IRS is maybe useful for times like W W ( x ) and Lincoln had an income tax for the civil war (pretty sure, could be wrong), hopefully those circumstances never happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FAPTurbo    1,094

The best way to learn about candidates is to look at many different news, and information sources, and not just those in your own country. Because Canadians are heavily impacted by American policy, our outlets spend a decent chunk of time talking about the current race for the White House. The BBC is an excellent source too, not only because their coverage is great, but they even provide profiles of the candidates; here's one for Mitt Romney, for example.

However, learning about the choices takes time, and effort, and despite easy access to information by the internet, and mass-media, people, especially those of our age seem to take no time whatsoever to do any research, and would rather make comments on YouTube, or creating Facebook fan-pages for Sanjaya.

Edited by Captainbooyah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FUTURE_OF_GM    26
Not trying to be an ass, but that isn't accurate. The founding fathers did consist of some Christians, but many of them were atheist/agnostic and NOT Christian. The US was not founded to favor or base itself upon any religion, hence the separation clause.

Doesn't matter what the founding fathers believed.

Look at Christian principles, then look at the laws of our country. It has nothing to do with combining church and state, it's more or less organization over complete anarchy.

Religion has no place in government. End of story.

I agree.

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FUTURE_OF_GM    26
if we don't stop waging war when we're not attacked, we're going to end up like these past empires. "we've" become divided, apathetic, and uncaring.

QFT.

we are forced into a "lesser of 2 evils" for president about >90 % of the time.

Again, QFT...

And I'm afraid the same thing will happen this time around.

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think any decent, patriotic American, democrat, republican or otherwise

would realize that religion needs to stay the f out of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Croc    268
Look at Christian principles, then look at the laws of our country. It has nothing to do with combining church and state, it's more or less organization over complete anarchy.

I agree.

Every religion shares the same basic principles of getting along with other people. Actually, when I look at the laws of our country, I see a lot of differences when compared to Christian doctrine...many fundamental. For example, violence in self-defense is acceptable in the US. Jesus supposedly said to turn the other cheek.

I think if you compared the "moral code" of just about any religion to the laws of the US you'd find a lot of common ground. There'd also be differences, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this