Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Perhaps you should try to develop a tolerance, since you mix politics and religion yourself. You advocate using government to combat AGW, and while you think you can get away with this by calling AGW science, it is not. Science relies on developing and testing hypotheses. AGW has failed all tests, every one. You and other warmists have a religious belief in AGW that is comparable to any religious belief, because it relies solely on faith.

According to warmists, during the period from the late 1970's until 1998 temperatures and CO2 levels were rising and therefore that 20 year period proves that man-made CO2 (which is only 5% of total atmospheric CO2) caused g****l w*****g. In the 16 years that have passed since 1998 CO2 levels have continued to rise but there has been no warming. If CO2 were really to blame for warming, then during the past 16 years it should have not only continued, but accelerated.

Because of that simple fact alone, not to mention volumes of other data, the only way you can continue to believe g****l w*****g is caused by CO2 levels is to have absolute religious faith in a failed hypothesis.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Every time you call it myth and superstition, you are ridiculing those who see religion as real. You are essentially telling us that we are crazy.



However do you get along with your own party? All I see from Liberals is attempts to impose their views on others through public policy. All the political correct bulls**t is imposing ones view. Gun control...imposing their view. A******n (admittedly goes both ways) imposing ones view. All of this without necessarily having religion involved in the discussion.

However, you can't separate religion from politics. That wasn't even our forefathers goal. They merely wanted to prevent politics from affecting religion...hence the right to freely practice religion. Yet that is another area liberals seek to impose their view. They don't want pastors preaching out against Homosexuality even though it is protected under religious rights AND free speech. And don't give me any bulls**t about h**e speech. Even "h**e speech" is protected under the 1st amendment provided it is not construed as a form of assault (IE a threat of some measurable form of harm).

Just remember one very important thing. Democrats (in particular) love to categorize and label everyone in the guise of demographics. After all, who can we say is responsible for all our problems if we can't identify them? (Sound familiar? Same thing happened in Germany back in the 30's.) However, my point is that one of those categories is people of religious belief. You cannot have a representative government if it doesn't also represent religion.

That said, I believe that no law should be passed that is of an entirely religious nature (such as prohibition). Like you said, it is wrong to impose one's view upon others. That's not the same as preaching ones view and letting others decide for themselves. I have much more I can say on the subject, but I will let it rest unless and until you say something to cause me to bring it up.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

This may sound like a minor distinction but it's important. It's not that EVEN "h**e speech' or offensive speech is protected, it's SPECIFICALLY "h**e speech" or offensive speech that's protected. There is no reason to protect inoffensive speech, it doesn't need protection.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

Good point. This is what I was really trying to say.

danzip

Well aren't we just loaded with altruisms however sounding so gussy I see you lopsided logistics in your closing! The man (sic) who has lied from the beginning and continues to do so,,,,,,,,,,and who has been analyzed by leading shrinkswho point out this turkey really says is to turn around his chatter from positive to negative. Just in case that you don't get my meaning lame brain, he goes against our constitution with justo, putting aside our founding fathers sweat and blood to see to it that we have attained the most free and democratic republic in the world and they lust for what we had before Obummer, who wants a public army to arrest its own people. May the Lord our God come with fury to negate those forceswho would turn on his faithful. Amen

The Progressive Patriot

I actually think that you're psychotic. There others at least try to make sense. Cut the crap or get out of here

The Progressive Patriot

How can I mix politics and religion since I am not burdened by religion? I could come up with a lot more science to prove man made c*****e c****e but I'm not going to bother because you don't want to believe it.

The Progressive Patriot

[quote=memBrain]

Every time you call it myth and superstition, you are ridiculing those who see religion as real. You are essentially telling us that we are crazy.

No, I'm exercising my right to free speech. How you take it is your problem.

The Progressive Patriot

However do you get along with your own party? All I see from Liberals is attempts to impose their views on others through public policy. All the political correct bulls**t is imposing ones view. Gun control...imposing their view. A******n (admittedly goes both ways) imposing ones view. All of this without necessarily having religion involved in the discussion.

However, you can't separate religion from politics. That wasn't even our forefathers goal. They merely wanted to prevent politics from affecting religion...hence the right to freely practice religion. Yet that is another area liberals seek to impose their view. They don't want pastors preaching out against Homosexuality even though it is protected under religious rights AND free speech. And don't give me any bulls**t about h**e speech. Even "h**e speech" is protected under the 1st amendment provided it is not construed as a form of assault (IE a threat of some measurable form of harm).



That said, I believe that no law should be passed that is of an entirely religious nature (such as prohibition). Like you said, it is wrong to impose one's view upon others. That's not the same as preaching ones view and letting others decide for themselves. I have much more I can say on the subject, but I will let it rest unless and until you say something to cause me to bring it up.[/quote]

Seeking to impose philosophical or political views is different that the imposition of religious views. Jefferson knew that "the wall of separation between church and state" has two sides. Yes, government should not be interfering with religion and religious institutions should not be influencing government. And yes, h**e speech is protected, but does that make it right?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Once again you either missed, or chose to obscure, the point. You say you're not burdened by religion. What you're really saying is that you're not burdened by a belief in the bible.

This is a definition of "religion" from Merriam-Webster: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

You remind me of Voltair's famous quote, "If God did not exist, we would have to invent him". Voltair did believe in God, but his point is that most people need to believe in something, usually some deity, greater than themselves or mankind. That is you, you choose to not believe in God, but you still need religious belief so you've substituted Gaia for God. Just as you complain about others with more traditional religious beliefs, you do this without, indeed against, logic or reason. Instead you employ pure, blind faith and reject all evidence that goes against your religion. Worse, you then try to influence public policy to impose that blind faith, or religion, on everybody else.

Your last sentence is partially correct. I am not burdened by your religion and I don't believe in it. I also don't want it imposed on me. You are incorrect about the science part. Have you ever heard of the "scientific method"?

hogorina Loc: USA

THE GHOSTS OF KARL MARX

We have a religious empire in America. All of these man-made schemes, most, have direct ties to the IRS. Thought control in America comes through the ancient Edomites.This nation was developed by Esau, brother of Jacob, Israel. Both are of the Semitic lineage through Rebecca and Isaac. This spiritual war developed approximately 1300 BC. When reading any news paper one is being taken in by thought control. As history demonstrates; all past wars resulted from clergy men and illicit investing. As Marx proclaimed, ( Gold is a God ). Theoretically, Marx was his own man-professional global revolutionaries twists this man's works on economics, just as fools in the national news industry collectively preach and prant about misunderstood socialism.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Well, hopefully, your tinfoil hat will protect you.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

No, it's not.



Yes, it does. You must protect all speech that does not intentionally incite to r*******n, or intentionally make a threat.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

No, but it does make laws against it unconstitutional. Wh**ever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."?

The Progressive Patriot

[quote=Voice of Reason]

I have to tell you , this is an insult to my intelligence. Do you think that I can't use a dictionary!?Why did you choose to present only the 4th definition from Webster which supports your ridiculous claim that I'm religious in my own way. Here are the others:


1 the service and worship of God or the supernatural commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

You are absurd , but sadly it's typical