Michael J Fox - Human Shield

[Dr Grump]

The rub can go either way….too much religion or too little.

No such thing as too little religion...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No such thing as too little religion...

In your atheistic mind...

 

[MGB]

Thou shalt not kill.
Laws that prohibit the murder of human beings, including the most innocent and helpless among us.


Am I correct that this commandment applies only to US citizens? From my limited knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, I THOUGHT it applied to all people, but apparently Iraqis were not in The Lord's contemplation, at least according to our current oh so pious president. Have I missed something?

 

[onedomino]

Thou shalt not kill.
Laws that prohibit the murder of human beings, including the most innocent and helpless among us.


Am I correct that this commandment applies only to US citizens? From my limited knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, I THOUGHT it applied to all people, but apparently Iraqis were not in The Lord's contemplation, at least according to our current oh so pious president. Have I missed something?

No, you hit being disingenuous right on the head. You are implying that the US has murdered Iraqis. That is an insipid, black-hearted assertion and reflects the character of the author.

 

[jillian]

OK, so we could say you are a Deist? or should we say deist, uncapitalized because I'm sure you believe in your own personal twist. You've given us the standard pat answer from the Left, at least those of the Left who continue to believe in God but are no longer Christian or believers in any other religion. You guys always dredge up Thomas Jefferson as though he is your savior in the false argument of "separation of church and state".

A Deist believes in a Designer or God or Deity, therefore is not an atheist. Deism differs from religion because it believes in nature and reason but not in revelation. Deists however do pray thanks and appreciation to God. Deism encourages self-reliance, use of reason, and to question authority. A Deist makes no unreasonable claims, such as Moses parted the Red Sea or Jesus walked on water and so does not rely on faith as do Christians. Deism believes in learning and gaining knowledge instead of superstition or fairy tales.
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

So Thomas Jefferson believed in a God. Why is it then that the liberal Left attempts to erase God entirely from the schools, the Courts, and everywhere else in our governmental system? Thomas Jefferson had no quibble about praying to God or acknowledging God in government functions.

As a result of Thomas Jefferson's (and other founder's) concerns about a religion running the government, it was put in the Constitution that there can be no establishment of religion. On this point, I wholly agree with you. However, no establishment did not mean no expression of religion. Our right to such expression is retained in our right to free speech. We all know that the Founders prayed to God at government functions, including Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson did not oppose the heavy-duty praying that occurred at government functions….today's praying is anemic compared to back then...

As a Deist, Thomas Jefferson believed in nature and reason and the pursuit of knowledge. Nature and reason and scientific knowledge today tells us today that conception is the beginning of human life. Thus it is very reasonable to believe that a zygote is the start of a human being. Why is it so unreasonable to oppose the killing of such life which is actually a developing human being? Is it natural and reasonable to create human life only to kill it in the pursuit of other interests? Would it be natural and reasonable to you if we kill your child if by doing so we could possibly save 100 other people? I think not. This natural reasoning is not necessarily based in religious "dogma". However, it is amazing how much religious "dogma" turns out to be backed up by science, but that's another topic. Grump sneers that I sound like a "screaming eagle"....heh, of course I do....even in NATURE parent eagles become "screaming eagles" when their nest of eggs are threatened. Why shouldn't man also scream when his future generations are threatened? Purely natural.

Once again you are wrong in thinking that I am some sort of "zealot". Just read the last paragraph again and you will understand the gist of my thinking on ESCR. "Zealot" is a word being used by the godless Left and their followers to marginalize (see Eightball's definition) religious citizens in this country who have a RIGHT to exist and to express their beliefs, no matter what crap they believe. Regarding the rape argument, I used plenty of rational reasoning to support my claims. But you are so brainwashed by the Left that you cannot accept or even deal with such rational arguments and so prefer instead to shut people up with personal attacks. My thinking had nothing to do with "zealotry".

Following are a few examples of Christian beliefs that I believe are/should be expressed in our laws. Maybe some of these are your beliefs too. These laws which are based in Christian (and other) beliefs do not prohibit you from entertaining your own belief system as long as you follow the law. If you belong to a satanic cult that believes in murdering people or perhaps a Muslim sect that believes you can beat your wife to death you'll run into trouble with the law. Those are some beliefs we do not allow to be "expressed" in America. Obviously there are some lines that need to be drawn….which lines we choose to enact (via our vote) are based upon our beliefs, Christian or otherwise.

Thou shalt not kill.
Laws that prohibit the murder of human beings, including the most innocent and helpless among us.

Thou shalt not steal.
Laws that prohibit all forms of stealing property from one another - including government theft of private property.

Thou shalt honor thy mother and father.
Laws that allow parents the right to be notified of their daughter's pregnancy before she elects to get an abortion.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Laws that allow a woman (or man) a better settlement in a divorce if they've been cheated on.

Finally, what gives you the right to claim that your Deist beliefs (or whatever) are any better than my Christian beliefs? Well, as a matter of fact, the Constitution gives you that right. And me too. I have the Constitutional right to claim that my Christian beliefs are better than yours. As long as we do not establish a government religion we both have the right to express ourselves politically and to enact legislation that reflects those beliefs OR is that something you cannot TOLERATE??

Very interesting, if wrong and unsubstantiated theory.... I would start by pointing out that our Constitution has a First Amendment for a reason... and that's to protect us from people who want to establish a State religion and insert their religious beliefs into law.

I would also point out that athiests don't kill either and going by all the hypocritcal evangelists who cheated, robbed, screwed around and lied, that a professed belief in Jesus is not a guarantee of morality. I think good works are far more important than the words "I accept Jesus Christ.... "

I'd also refer you to the writings of Thomas Paine, De Toqueville, Locke and the other political philosophers whose work actually did form the basis of our governmental system.

You also failed to explain the fact that Jefferson hated the Christian Church and how that hatred is consistent with your fantasy that Chrisitianity formed the basis of our Constitution.

If you can be bothered tearing yourself away from your bible and actually ready political philosophy, the Constitution and the case law construing it, perhaps your posts would have more credibility and wouldn't sound so out of it.

 

[MGB]

That is an insipid, black-hearted assertion and reflects the character of the author.


It would be appreciated if you would answer the question instead of hiding behind political dogma. Do the initials WWJD mean ANYTHING to you?

 

[onedomino]

That is an insipid, black-hearted assertion and reflects the character of the author.


It would be appreciated if you would answer the question instead of hiding behind political dogma. Do the initials WWJD mean ANYTHING to you?

Political dogma? What are you talking about? You implied that the US committed murder in Iraq. I said that was an insipid, black-hearted assertion that reflects the character of the person who wrote it. There is nothing political about my statement; it is what I think about you.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Dude, you've never shredded a single thing I've said and your ignorance is actually quite amusing, if astounding.

Do provide proof, though, of the "state sanctioned church", since such a thing would be in clear violation of the Constitution.

By the way, just for the record, since you opined as to what "liberals" want.... I think business owners should be able to decide for themselves if they want their establishment to be smoking or non-smoking and then the customer has the right to decide whether they go there or not.

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the discussion at hand, but since you raised it....

As for this being at the forefront of legal issues... it is only when the radical right makes it a legal issue. But thanks for the heads up... I'll take that into consideration next time I do a Memo of Law at work.

And when I provide the PROOF that there were OFFICIAL STATE SANCTIONED RELIGIONS, then what shall ye say?? An admission of error on your part? If I cant provide it, then I will admit Im wrong, how about it eh? How confident are you truly in your POV?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Very interesting, if wrong and unsubstantiated theory.... I would start by pointing out that our Constitution has a First Amendment for a reason... and that's to protect us from people who want to establish a State religion and insert their religious beliefs into law.

I would also point out that athiests don't kill either and going by all the hypocritcal evangelists who cheated, robbed, screwed around and lied, that a professed belief in Jesus is not a guarantee of morality. I think good works are far more important than the words "I accept Jesus Christ.... "

I'd also refer you to the writings of Thomas Paine, De Toqueville, Locke and the other political philosophers whose work actually did form the basis of our governmental system.

You also failed to explain the fact that Jefferson hated the Christian Church and how that hatred is consistent with your fantasy that Chrisitianity formed the basis of our Constitution.

If you can be bothered tearing yourself away from your bible and actually ready political philosophy, the Constitution and the case law construing it, perhaps your posts would have more credibility and wouldn't sound so out of it.

Out of it? Another jillie personal attack? Is that all you have in response? Let me ask my questions again here in plain English and see if you can actually answer them. I'll keep the list short.

1. Why does the liberal Left want absolutely no reference to God in our government when it is clear that even Founders like Thomas Jefferson prayed and recognized God in government functions?

2. If my argument against ESCR is based on nature and scientific knowledge, why do you persist in calling me a Bible-thumping zealot?

3. Do you think we should get rid of laws regarding murder and stealing because - after all - they reflect moral principles of Christianity?

4. Do you think Christians should not voice their moral opinions in public or any thing related to politics or government?

To answer your post, first of all, I agree the First Amendment is there to prevent the establishment of a religion in our government. However, you have completely missed the point that certain religious beliefs and morals can still wind up as part of our law…as exemplified by the Commandments.

I would disagree with you on your claim that atheists don't kill. Stalin, Mao, etc. were basically godless in nature. The "State" which they controlled became a sort of "god". An atheist really has nothing to hold him back from killing if he can "justify" to himself a reason for murder. I will agree with you that there are plenty of religious people who have also murdered, but two wrongs don't make a right. Besides, religious murderers were going AGAINST their religious teachings. Stalin wasn't really going against any teachings because with atheism there aren't any teachings to go against.

Did I ever say that Christianity per se formed the "basis" of our Constitution? No. However, the principles of Christianity did help to influence the formation of our country. This country was founded by God-fearing men and women who believed that each individual is individually responsible for his actions. Our country will not survive without this moral basis upon which it depends. Jefferson may have hated organized religion but that is not what I am talking about. We both agree that any organized church or religion should not establish itself in power. However, the moral basis for this country was based upon Christian principles and without this moral basis we will suffer as a country. Even Jefferson realized this.
--"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." President Thomas Jefferson
--"Of all systems of morality, ancient of modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus." Thomas Jefferson, To William Canby, 1813

The liberal Left is attempting to replace Christian values with non-values, which IMO are very negative and will destroy our country. These non-values are not exactly defined by liberals but you can see them being expressed in things that liberals push: abortion, ESCR, pornography, homosexuality, gay marriage, softness on crime, underage sex, "Winter Holiday" instead of Christmas, no praying, no crosses on the graves of the fallen, ....and so on. Are these really the values that you want to support?

 

[Dr Grump]

Why does the liberal Left want absolutely no reference to God in our government when it is clear that even Founders like Thomas Jefferson prayed and recognized God in government functions

more to the point why DO you want it in govt? It marginalises those who do not believe in your god. Then you get northern ireland...

If my argument against ESCR is based on nature and scientific knowledge, why do you persist in calling me a Bible-thumping zealot?

And there's the rub. There have been numerous links posted stating 1) ESCR can have benefits from scientists. Hell I even ponied up a link showing that one of the links the anti-ESCR posted quoting a scientist was wrong. 2) Because you are a bible-thumping zealot.

Do you think we should get rid of laws regarding murder and stealing because - after all - they reflect moral principles of Christianity ?

They also reflect my moral principles and I'm a non-believer....

I would disagree with you on your claim that atheists don't kill. Stalin, Mao, etc. were basically godless in nature.

They killed because they were egomaniacs, not because of their beliefs..

 

[dilloduck]

more to the point why DO you want it in govt? It marginalises those who do not believe in your god. Then you get northern ireland...



And there's the rub. There have been numerous links posted stating 1) ESCR can have benefits from scientists. Hell I even ponied up a link showing that one of the links the anti-ESCR posted quoting a scientist was wrong. 2) Because you are a bible-thumping zealot.



They also reflect my moral principles and I'm a non-believer....



They killed because they were egomaniacs, not because of their beliefs..

Egomania is the polar opposite of spirituality. THIS IS WHAT SECULARISTS DON'T GET

 

[Dr Grump]

Egomania is the polar opposite of spirituality. THIS IS WHAT SECULARISTS DON'T GET

That explains Osama, Cortez, Torquemada, Saladin....yadda, yadda, yadda

 

[dilloduck]

That explains Osama, Cortez, Torquemada, Saladin....yadda, yadda, yadda

I think we have ascertained that claiming to be spiritual does necessarily mean that one is. Secularists don't get that one either.

 

[Dr Grump]

I think we have ascertained that claiming to be spiritual does necessarily mean that one is. Secularists don't get that one either.

Osama is very spiritual. What i do get is I don't get to decide who is spiritual and who isn't. I leave that to the egomanical fundie Christians/Muslims. I'll buy a clue for you Dillo: You don't have to be religious to be spiritual, and if you think you do, see sentences two and three in this post.

 

[Said1]

Osama is very spiritual. What i do get is I don't get to decide who is spiritual and who isn't. I leave that to the egomanical fundie Christians/Muslims. I'll buy a clue for you Dillo: You don't have to be religious to be spiritual, and if you think you do, see sentences two and three in this post.

Of course you dont' have to be religious to be spiritual, even Voltaire didn't believe in Jesus. Anyway, were you being sarcastic about Osama being spiritual?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

more to the point why DO you want it in govt? It marginalises those who do not believe in your god. Then you get northern ireland...

And there's the rub. There have been numerous links posted stating 1) ESCR can have benefits from scientists. Hell I even ponied up a link showing that one of the links the anti-ESCR posted quoting a scientist was wrong. 2) Because you are a bible-thumping zealot.

They also reflect my moral principles and I'm a non-believer....

They killed because they were egomaniacs, not because of their beliefs..

More to the point why do you guys keep ignoring the point about T. Jefferson? You guys only bring him up in arguments when it's convenient for you to quote him but then try to change the subject when it's shown that he did not protest God in government nor prayers in public. Looks like you're going to have to find a new Founder to support your anti-God viewpoints.

There is no "rub". I've pointed out my reasoning on ESCR based on scientific truth. You ignored my link with the opinions of a real, live, reputable scientist. How that makes me a "Bible-thumping zealot" is beyond me….you are really reaching here.

So if laws reflect the moral principles of both you atheists and us Christians, THEN the law is OK? I thought we lived in a country where the majority ruled?

Sure they were egomaniacs. And this proves what? Like dilloduck says, you guys just don't get it. Do you think a Christian in good standing would act like Stalin did? Of course not.

 

[Said1]

Do you think a Christian in good standing would act like Stalin did? Of course not.

Actually, I do. Power corrupts.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually, I do. Power corrupts.

Then he would lose his good standing.:halo:

 

[Said1]

Then he would lose his good standing.:halo:

Of course. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Of course. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

At least Christianity has good intentions. Can't say that for atheism.:teeth: