JohnCo

You're right, in that those lacking a better argument often fall back on the "God" excuse.

When using the God excuse, they usually assume that they know more about God than their opposition does.

I also like to invoke "God" once in a while, but since it usually leads to some misunderstanding, I try to be sparing in my use of such words. Besides, a careless use of such a word might be some kind of blasphemy.

Big Kahuna

JohnCo you speak with fork tongue. You talk a good game then throw the term "spiteful demagogue" with no basis to back your claim up. If anyone is spiteful and a demagogue it appears to be you.

Big Kahuna

When you invoke God, we assume you are talking about Satan. When we invoke God, we are talking about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, (Israel). The God of the 10 Commandments. Is that the God you believe in?

JohnCo

Trump acts spitefully. I thought it was obvious to all. An example of him acting spitefully is when he tweeted "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution," a 2:24 p.m. Eastern Time Jan. 6. Mike Pence simply did what he had to do. He had already consulted attorneys about what his options were. Another example of Trump acting spitefully is how he talked about Brian Kemp as described here: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/president-trump-calls-gov-brian-kemp-fool-clown-over-election-results

Trump is a demagogue. "demagogue": "A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace." Example 1: the power to storm the Capitol: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-protests-idUSKBN29B24S
Example 2: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/02/trumps-most-insulting-violent-language-is-often-reserved-immigrants/
Example 3: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-japanese-incarceration-camps-in-wwii-and-trumps-muslim-ban-have-in-common-opinion/ar-BB1dhGnK

JohnCo

Oh you "assume" I was "talking about Satan"? Ha ha. But it is foolishness. You are an example of what I described: "they usually assume that they know more about God than their opposition does". Straighten up, before you expect me to describe God or my beliefs, to you; and even then I might not. It would be beside the point (in this thread) anyway: https://www.au.org/issues/history-and-origins-of-church-state-separation. The point is that you (or anyone in this thread up to now, because it hasn't really been a religious discussion) ought to be able to make an argument without invoking "God" at all -- any god.

I noticed you used the word "we" a couple of times. That word is sometimes mis-used. You could say "I" and you would have the authority to say what that one person believes. If there's any reason for you to say "we" then I'd like you to say more precisely whom you mean.

We (you and I) have gotten off topic. But I don't like your assumptions about such kinds of beliefs. Maybe we should drop that matter here. You could start a new Original Post about religious beliefs if you want that kind of discussion, and maybe some people will want to discuss that in that thread. Most posts on OPP seem to be more about politics but maybe any Original Post topic is fair game.

Sicilianthing

>>>

What would the Founding Fathers say to you about all your positions on this?

JohnCo

Regarding my positions in this thread, I think they'd agree with me, either totally, or mostly and essentially. But I haven't spent very much time thinking about that. I remember at least a couple of major points that the founders seemed to be about: (a) they didn't want a king, and (b) they wanted "checks and balances". And of course they had some reasoning and experience behind those thoughts.

I remember reading the Declaration of Independence and I think I have the gist of what that document's about: it includes a justification of _why_ they declared independence, and a few of the wrongs they list are similar to some wrongs that still exist today even within the U.S. (so we haven't been totally successful at getting rid of all the wrongs). (I'm thinking in particular of unfair difficulties in taking matters to courts.)

The founders (or "Founding Fathers") had a kind of logic, and I think my logic mostly agrees with theirs, but there is at least one exception (maybe not relevant to this thread though): they probably wouldn't agree with some of my thoughts about taxation and ownership, and possibly not even about banking, and maybe not even about slavery, because a few of them may have not only owned slaves but even have been in favor of slavery. I believe there was a place in the Constitution that counted a black person as 3/5 the value of a white person, and I don't think that way.

There's also the matter of non-landowners and women and Native Americans -- the idea of who should have voting rights has changed over the intervening years.

The founders did allow for some change. They wouldn't have gotten _everything_ right; for example they probably didn't know women would later get the right to vote and hold office as men do, and I think we (most people in the developed world) are more correct in our views about women now than they were then (collectively). And they wouldn't know about the speed of air travel or the internet, and they wouldn't know as much as we do now about pollution, and at least one or two of these are important factors now.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert

I think the founding fathers were on to something with the nonlandowners not having a right to vote.

Big Kahuna

And again you evaded my question. Who is your God JohnCo? Be real and quit being a phoney.

Big Kahuna

JohnCo would have been a King George 3rd supporter. You can tell by being a demorat that tyranny runs deep in his DNA. He would have been a turncoat. He supported Pence' s stab in Trump' s back so you know he hates our country like treasonous Pence , the pedophile, according to Lin Wood.

tNotMyPrez Loc: So. CA, USA

If the "founding fathers" intended for the US Constitution to be a static, rigid & stagnant document, they wouldn't have written into it the capability for the lawmakers to change it over time. Whether you AGREE with it or not, whether you LIKE it or not, the Constitution has been legally and progressively modified over the last 240+ years. You shouldn't be so comfortable cherry-pickng the intentions of the founding fathers. They didn't just believe what you think.

Big Kahuna

Those collecting welfare for many years should also be kicked off the voter rolls until they get a job. We have too many demorat voters with no skin in the game and that doesn't even include the illegals who vote dmorat who have no skin in our country.

Big Kahuna

Ovommit modified our Constitution at will. He could have cared less about our Constitution and to him it was as fluid as the water going over Niagara Falls. Of course he never did produce a valid long form birth certificate so he was a non citizen pushing his marxist viewpoint from some 3rd world hell hole.

tNotMyPrez Loc: So. CA, USA

As the brilliant debater you say you are, you have the same comprehension problem, as do many of your kind, regarding what was said: you twist something to mean what you think it should, then go off on a tangent as if you are correct. John didn't evade your question. His answer was direct and unequivocal: he's not going to discuss his religion or spirituality with you on this thread, and possibly nowhere else. And you know what? He doesn't have to. You are not in charge and you don't get to set any parameters.