Homosexuality is a sin, is it not? (Page 40): Good job at contradicting yourself. And stop putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say. The United States is not other...

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

whitnebrat wrote:

While I appreciate your historical screed, I must point out that the ultimate enforcer of any moral creed is the government under which it is established. That is the ultimate and immediate stick which cudgels people into submission to the civil and criminal laws. The carrot is (for the religiously inclined) is the promise of heaven, forty-seven virgins or wh**ever. For those that do not partake of the religious moral code, it is only the government that keeps the society in order with enforceable laws.
When one religion takes control of the government, they always tend to try to enforce their own morality on the entire population. The lessons of history show this a multitude of times. If the people that disagree have nowhere to go to escape this, it is a constant thorn in both their and the government's side.
There are a few basic tenets that show up throughout history as moral values that every society has adopted; namely prohibitions against murder, theft, lying and bonking your neighbor's wife. Other than this, there are not too many similarities in the moral codes of the various religions. These are also the bedrock of keeping a society civil.
When societies go beyond these all-encompassing basic values, they tend to oppress minorities and their own population. That is all too clear in the Chinese suppression of the Ugher(sp) Moslem population in western China. It is also clear in the suppression of Christian believers in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East countries. It almost always happens, when a government becomes a theocracy.
It happened in our own country, as is chronicled in your post above. The CofE was a virtual theocracy that forced the Protestants to either submit or move ... creating the religious colonies that eventually became the United States. Since they couldn't agree on dogma (which governed the government as well in each state), the Constitution did indeed include the First Amendment regarding religion. It is interesting to note that not all of the states agreed to that amendment, since their own state constitutions included much of their religious morals, and they were loathe to give up that strict conduct set of laws.
All in all, to attempt to go back to a set of moral codes such as Rhode Island or Massachusetts had in the 1600's is to attempt to circumvent the First Amendment. Whether you like it or not, we are going multi-cultural and there's no getting around that. And to attempt to force all of these diverse segments of the population into a "Christian" mold is doomed to ultimate failure unless you want to form a theocracy. That's not something that I want to see, and neither will most others.

While I appreciate your historical screed, I must ... (show quote)

Good job at contradicting yourself. And stop putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say.

The United States is not other countries that you reference as examples. All the States ultimately ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (some took longer than others). No one is forcing diverse segments of the population into a Christian mold. Has someone forced you to bow down to a theocracy? I don't think so.

You said, "There are a few basic tenets that show up throughout history as moral values that every society has adopted." They are God's laws endowed to us. You should read the Declaration of Independence since it is our first official Government document that lays the groundwork and justification for everything that follows.

Our government and country is the one place in the world that openly embraces and encourages m**************m and diversity. Diversity is more than everyone looking different, your idea of diversity. Diversity of thought with respect for that diversity is what Conservatives advocate.

You are so very tiresome, and I can't make you see the light unless you open your eyes and your mind. My work here is done.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

dtucker300 wrote:

Good job at contradicting yourself. And stop putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say.

The United States is not other countries that you reference as examples. All the States ultimately ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (some took longer than others). No one is forcing diverse segments of the population into a Christian mold. Has someone forced you to bow down to a theocracy? I don't think so.

In fact, while all states did ratify the Constitution, the "Bill of Rights" was not adopted by all the states. The reason that the first ten amendments were not in the basic Constitution is because there were states that objected to each of them, and had they been part of the original Constitution, it would not have passed. An amendment only requires three-forths of the states to ratify them, hence their position as amendments.
The creation of laws that come only from Christian dogma creates a de-facto theorcracy. By passing laws that apply to the entire population that are uniquely Christian in nature, you create such a beast.

Quote:

You said, "There are a few basic tenets that show up throughout history as moral values that every society has adopted." They are God's laws endowed to us. You should read the Declaration of Independence since it is our first official Government document that lays the groundwork and justification for everything that follows.

In fact, the Declaration of Independence is just that, a declaration of the thirteen colonies to secede from British rule. It carries no legal weight and is not official in any legal sense. The colonies then passed the Articles of Confederation, which did carry legal water, and later adopted the current Constitution.
History would show you (if you chose to read up on it) that every civilization clear back to the ancient Indian, Chinese, Persian and Egyptian civilizations had similar provisions for keeping social order and keeping things quiet in the social structure.

Quote:

Our government and country is the one place in the world that openly embraces and encourages m**************m and diversity. Diversity is more than everyone looking different, your idea of diversity. Diversity of thought with respect for that diversity is what Conservatives advocate.

You might consider revising your first sentence here to the past tense. Not since the immigration of the Irish, Polish, and Chinese has there been such invective and discrimination thrown at minority communities as there is today. You might send your sentiments to the president, since he is espousing such monocultural ideas for white folk.

Quote:

You are so very tiresome, and I can't make you see the light unless you open your eyes and your mind. My work here is done.

I would respond to have you read history and apply the lessons contained therein. You've heard me admit that I was wrong before, and I'll do so again when provided with provable fact to alter my opinions.
As for your work being done, you have just begun, and the learning curve will be vertical if you choose to learn. But I hold no illusions that this will happen.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

whitnebrat wrote:

OK, if I were to have no religious affiliation, and (by your definition) no moral character, what besides the government is there to keep me from murdering, stealing, etc.?

If the government had never passed any law making murder or theft a crime, what would prevent you from murdering or stealing?

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Blade_Runner wrote:

If the government had never passed any law making murder or theft a crime, what would prevent you from murdering or stealing?

Nothing.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

whitnebrat wrote:

Nothing.

So, without a government to tell you how to behave, you'd just be out of control. Can't think for yourself. Pathetic.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Blade_Runner wrote:

So, without a government to tell you how to behave, you'd just be out of control. Can't think for yourself. Pathetic.

Exactly. Do we need a gov to tell us how to not be bad??!! I mean really, are these i***t saying they should be murderous robbers and rapists if the gov doesn't tell them not to be????

Lordy!!

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

nwtk2007 wrote:

Exactly. Do we need a gov to tell us how to not be bad??!! I mean really, are these i***t saying they should be murderous robbers and rapists if the gov doesn't tell them not to be????

Lordy!!

Sounds like that's what she's saying.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

At least I got your attention ...

The only thing that would prevent me from murdering, raping, pillaging and plundering is the moral code that I was brought up with, which I got from my parents. It had nothing to do with religion ... it was just the right thing to do.
In later life, I got a reinforcement for that from my Buddhist research, which amplified the prohibitions against k*****g, stealing, lying and a few other things. Buddhism, by the way, isn't really a religion, it's more of a philosophy ... a way of life.
What I was trying to say, was that the government was the last resort to keep people that were not amenable to that set of basic moral principles from doing these dastardly things. It's why we have jails and penitentiaries full of people that are a menace to the rest of society.
That was my only point, and I would think that you all would welcome that concept. It isn't religiously based, it's just plain logic to keep a society civil.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

whitnebrat wrote:

I would respond to have you read history and apply the lessons contained therein. You've heard me admit that I was wrong before, and I'll do so again when provided with provable fact to alter my opinions.
As for your work being done, you have just begun, and the learning curve will be vertical if you choose to learn. But I hold no illusions that this will happen.

The second amendment provides freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It doesn't matter when or how many ratified the Bill of Rights. It is enshrined in the Constitution. It doesn't make any difference if it was 3/4s or 100%. It carries as much weight as any other portion of the constitution and is just as binding. Just because they are amendments doesn't make them any less valid or meaningful. You have it completely backward that the Constitution would not have been ratified if they were originally included. It was the opposite, several representatives argued that the amendments were unnecessary because the protections were already in the Constitution. Others demanded they be added and a committee was created to field suggestion from states. Look at the Preamble of the Bill of Rights. "The conventions of a number of states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added;" In fact, they were 113 proposed Amendments by the states.

You are always railing about proof and yet you never provide any yourself. Unfortunately, since I don't have any of my old textbooks on hand to reference, and it has been years since I went to school, I cannot cite a source for my statement at this time. And I am not going to spend the entire day looking for them on the internet just to satisfy your curiosity.

Obviously, your intellect isn't satisfied. Your statement that the Declaration of Independence "carries no legal weight and is not official in any legal sense" is complete nonsense as it has been cited in several Supreme Court Decisions. You view was the view of the king that it has no official weight and he lost the colonies because of that attitude. It was the justification for independence from England. It is the founding document of the United States just as the Northwest Ordinance has the force and status of constitutional law even though it was created under the Articles of Confederation. The passage of the Declaration of Independence is when Americans no longer thought of themselves as Englishmen but as Americans. The grievances addressed to the King laid out what they believed were their retained rights. The Declaration spells out the principles, ends, and purposes of government. It becomes not a specific plan but a general road map for the creation of the Constitution.

You are mistaken starting with your first paragraph. I am not going to continue any further as I do not have the time to respond to every incorrect and unfactual statement you make. Mostly, I think it is because your definition of an official document is incomplete, that you are missing some important distinctions and nuances.

You can deny you are wrong all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that no matter how loud or often you repeat a lie it won't become t***h. You have a mistaken view of what constitutes an official document of the United States. In this respect, you are not alone. Many people are under the same illusion because we no longer adequately instruct students about the founding of our great country. Is it any wonder so many people are walking around with such disdain for American exceptionalism and western civilization. I am not saying that you are in this group. I believe you are a sincere patriot. Thanks for hearing me out.

Have a great day.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Blade_Runner wrote:

Sounds like that's what she's saying.

Thanks blade. I'm tard and needed straightening out. I need to reread the thread! You Do know, I love ya, right? I'm not exactly right in your eyes, I know, but I do appreciate your wisdom.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

dtucker300 wrote:

The second amendment provides freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It doesn't matter when or how many ratified the Bill of Rights. It is enshrined in the Constitution. It doesn't make any difference if it was 3/4s or 100%. It carries as much weight as any other portion of the constitution and is just as binding. Just because they are amendments doesn't make them any less valid or meaningful. You have it completely backward that the Constitution would not have been ratified if they were originally included. It was the opposite, several representatives argued that the amendments were unnecessary because the protections were already in the Constitution. Others demanded they be added and a committee was created to field suggestion from states. Look at the Preamble of the Bill of Rights. "The conventions of a number of states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added;" In fact, they were 113 proposed Amendments by the states.

You are always railing about proof and yet you never provide any yourself. Unfortunately, since I don't have any of my old textbooks on hand to reference, and it has been years since I went to school, I cannot cite a source for my statement at this time. And I am not going to spend the entire day looking for them on the internet just to satisfy your curiosity.

Obviously, your intellect isn't satisfied. Your statement that the Declaration of Independence "carries no legal weight and is not official in any legal sense" is complete nonsense as it has been cited in several Supreme Court Decisions. You view was the view of the king that it has no official weight and he lost the colonies because of that attitude. It was the justification for independence from England. It is the founding document of the United States just as the Northwest Ordinance has the force and status of constitutional law even though it was created under the Articles of Confederation. The passage of the Declaration of Independence is when Americans no longer thought of themselves as Englishmen but as Americans. The grievances addressed to the King laid out what they believed were their retained rights. The Declaration spells out the principles, ends, and purposes of government. It becomes not a specific plan but a general road map for the creation of the Constitution.

You are mistaken starting with your first paragraph. I am not going to continue any further as I do not have the time to respond to every incorrect and unfactual statement you make. Mostly, I think it is because your definition of an official document is incomplete, that you are missing some important distinctions and nuances.

You can deny you are wrong all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that no matter how loud or often you repeat a lie it won't become t***h. You have a mistaken view of what constitutes an official document of the United States. In this respect, you are not alone. Many people are under the same illusion because we no longer adequately instruct students about the founding of our great country. Is it any wonder so many people are walking around with such disdain for American exceptionalism and western civilization. I am not saying that you are in this group. I believe you are a sincere patriot. Thanks for hearing me out.

Have a great day.

The second amendment provides freedom of religion,... (show quote)

You're welcome, and I appreciate your viewpoint, even if we disagree on major points. Likewise on the great day.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Blade_Runner wrote:

So, without a government to tell you how to behave, you'd just be out of control. Can't think for yourself. Pathetic.

You got him!

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

whitnebrat wrote:

At least I got your attention ... br br The only... (show quote)

You did indeed. You present an interesting conundrum. However, I'm sure that your parents had some sort of religious influence somewhere unless they grew up secluded from civilization in New Guinea. I agree that Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion. Islam I not so sure about either way.

Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

nwtk2007 wrote:

Thanks blade. I'm tard and needed straightening out. I need to reread the thread! You Do know, I love ya, right? I'm not exactly right in your eyes, I know, but I do appreciate your wisdom.

Hey, we're cool, man. We're on the same side.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

dtucker300 wrote:

You did indeed. You present an interesting conundrum. However, I'm sure that your parents had some sort of religious influence somewhere unless they grew up secluded from civilization in New Guinea. I agree that Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion. Islam I not so sure about either way.

Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.

Nichiren would be proud! <grin>