Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
APPROVAL YOU BLOODY IDIOT!Your question is meaningless. A judge gave his blessing to a married couple means just that. I enjoy reading your points. They are wonderful assertions.what does "bless" mean in a secular context?
What is "gave his blessing"? What does that mean? (Secularly speaking, of course.)
>> I happen to believe that if you are kind, honest, generous, tolerant of others and help the downtrodden you practice real religion…I happen to believe that if you are kind, honest, generous, tolerant of others and help the downtrodden you practice real religion, the rest is just ritualistic mumbo-jumbo. I do not attend church or subscribe to mainstream Christian dogma because the threat of hell is no way to make people be good, they should do it for the sake of goodness. I am a grown adult, I do appreciate being treated like a child with empty promises of eternal treats and punishments. Fear has no place in a person's spiritual life, it should be a source of inner peace not a constant gnawing guilt.Thanks for pointing out my error. I thought that was Huggy who made that reference, but it was from your post. Apology to huggy.Thanks for taking the time to comment, but all I have heard from you so far is we need a government, and, Christians do not have a clue who Jesus was, but you do.
I said that Christians have forgotten the face of their patriarch and it is true. I never left Christianity, it left me when it turned to conservative secular principals as it's basis rather than the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Anyway –So I am confused, are you still a Christian? Or are you saying because the Christian voice so often aligns itself with many conservative social and political positions that you have left attending any Christian churches or abiding by Christianity period?
Regardless, it sounds kind of a weak argument. I cannot conceive of too many true faith believing Christians who do not pray heavily and attend a church on a regular basis. Otherwise, this one who claims to be a Christian and does not possess some minimums, is breaking too many “rules” IMO.
I do not think God would ever fault a Christian for voting republican if trying to eradicate legal abortion was their main reason. And when you also consider many other moral and social differences between the two parties, again, the republican platforms look more “godly” to me. (Not saying those republican punks in congress are doing crap about it. They don’t impress me.)
What on earth are you trying to say???I said "a huge outreach to help mother and child to get where Mom can be a tax payer down the road." Shelters and homes for the short-term and the breaking up of families is not long term. Don't turzovka, you look stupid.Too many of the far right socons seem to me to be Pharisaical in behavior and heart.
The desire to restrict abortion is not balanced by a huge outreach to help mother and child to get where Mom can be a tax payer down the road.
What's the saying?... "if you repeat a lie often enough it turns into accepted fact?"
Catholic missions in this country have countless orphanages, homes for pregnant mothers, domestic abuse shelters, and providers for single mothers. I would like to find the numbers (not easy) and then compare that to how many secular non-government shelters and care for the needy homes they have? I bet if you look in the yellow pages the vast majority will have some Christian association with them.
The current ideas for an afterlife, heaven, hell, the rapture, the end times etc. did not come from Jesus. For more information on my beliefs take a look at the philosophy behind the Jefferson Bible, that's Thomas Jefferson one of our founders. He boiled the new testament down to it's philosophical and moral basis and discarded all the supernatural stuff. He had a real hatred for those who would try to rule from the pulpit with fear and moral blackmail, as do I.>> I happen to believe that if you are kind, honest, generous, tolerant of others and help the downtrodden you practice real religion…I happen to believe that if you are kind, honest, generous, tolerant of others and help the downtrodden you practice real religion, the rest is just ritualistic mumbo-jumbo. I do not attend church or subscribe to mainstream Christian dogma because the threat of hell is no way to make people be good, they should do it for the sake of goodness. I am a grown adult, I do appreciate being treated like a child with empty promises of eternal treats and punishments. Fear has no place in a person's spiritual life, it should be a source of inner peace not a constant gnawing guilt.Thanks for pointing out my error. I thought that was Huggy who made that reference, but it was from your post. Apology to huggy.Thanks for taking the time to comment, but all I have heard from you so far is we need a government, and, Christians do not have a clue who Jesus was, but you do.
I said that Christians have forgotten the face of their patriarch and it is true. I never left Christianity, it left me when it turned to conservative secular principals as it's basis rather than the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Anyway –So I am confused, are you still a Christian? Or are you saying because the Christian voice so often aligns itself with many conservative social and political positions that you have left attending any Christian churches or abiding by Christianity period?
Regardless, it sounds kind of a weak argument. I cannot conceive of too many true faith believing Christians who do not pray heavily and attend a church on a regular basis. Otherwise, this one who claims to be a Christian and does not possess some minimums, is breaking too many “rules” IMO.
I do not think God would ever fault a Christian for voting republican if trying to eradicate legal abortion was their main reason. And when you also consider many other moral and social differences between the two parties, again, the republican platforms look more “godly” to me. (Not saying those republican punks in congress are doing crap about it. They don’t impress me.)
Yes, and I agree so far as would the Catholic Church.
>> the rest is just ritualistic mumbo-jumbo.
And here is where we have total disagreement.
>> I do not attend church or subscribe to mainstream Christian dogma because the threat of hell is no way to make people be good, they should do it for the sake of goodness. I am a grown adult, I do appreciate being treated like a child with empty promises of eternal treats and punishments. Fear has no place in a person's spiritual life, it should be a source of inner peace not a constant gnawing guilt.
So then you are not a Christian? Ok. Doesn’t sound like you left the faith because, as you said earlier, they went too conservative politically? Sounds like you have far more dogmatic differences.
As for me, I think the evidence for God and for Christianity is so beyond obvious that I could never deny its teachings without great risk. I am accountable. Maybe others who – if they sincerely try to want to know but still cannot accept it all --- maybe those types are not as accountable as I am? But still, I find it extremely risky in many cases because so many unbelievers I encounter are well educated and well off. Their time spent on earth is not in search of God, by and large. I hardly would refer to that as a “sincere effort to know.”
Horseshit! My point was not, "...to challenge "all men are created equal"..." as you claim, fool! BTW, idiot, slavery existed for 76 years after the Constitution was ratified but was finally abolished by Amendment XIII in 1865. That was after a war in which our Nation took part and only Americans and former Americans died! Yet, before then the Constitution could NOT have actually stood for any notion of equality among men with slavery a very real aspect of the US Constitution until it was repealed! Again, my point was centered on the proposition that the Constitution and the Constitution ONLY protects all the rights of the individual and not a phrase from the DOI nodding to "ethereal inalienability"!
Are you really that stupid and ill informed? Here was the law of the land then until 1865, fool!Slavery existed because, regrettably, the SCOTUS failed to properly interpret the language of the Constitution with regard to our founding principles. Self-evident truth is hard to deny. Presidents, congresses and courts couldn't do it. Even a war couldn't do it. Eventually self-evident truth prevails. All men ARE created equal and endowed rights by their Creator. The Constitution wasn't flawed, men who interpreted it incorrectly were.
That’s pretty funny… mostly.turzovka ducks and lies that I meant "a life long earnings career."
I do mean that "shelters, pregnancy homes, domestic shelters, orphanges" are the start not the end.
It is bizarre to think that one helps a woman with a baby and her immediate needs then sends her on her way.
The "church" which is so much more than the RC is required to do much, much more.
If you are going to have women have babies then your obligation is ongoing until the woman is a taxpayer or the baby is an adult.
APPROVAL YOU BLOODY IDIOT!Your question is meaningless. A judge gave his blessing to a married couple means just that. I enjoy reading your points. They are wonderful assertions.what does "bless" mean in a secular context?
What is "gave his blessing"? What does that mean? (Secularly speaking, of course.)
Are you really that stupid and ill informed? Here was the law of the land then until 1865, fool!Slavery existed because, regrettably, the SCOTUS failed to properly interpret the language of the Constitution with regard to our founding principles. Self-evident truth is hard to deny. Presidents, congresses and courts couldn't do it. Even a war couldn't do it. Eventually self-evident truth prevails. All men ARE created equal and endowed rights by their Creator. The Constitution wasn't flawed, men who interpreted it incorrectly were.
US Constitution;
Article, § 2, Clause 3
"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Article I, § 2, Clause 3
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons". [slaves]
First slave act of Congress - Fugitive Slave Act of 1793
Slavery was a part of the Constitution until 1865 when Amendment XIII was ratified and certified, dimwit! It had nothing to do with the Courts being the Law of the Land. Slavery continued to exist after ratification of the Constitution because it was written into the Constitution. It was nothing more than a compromise with the devil himself himself, and the human misery it caused is unimaginable and a stain on this Nation. You really don't know jack shit, you bloody creature!!!!
Boss, you don't get to use your own terms and definitions, and expect them to be accepted.
The judge blessed the couple. He is secular, so it is a secular blessing.
Boss, you do not understand the philosophy of the Constitution. Simple fact.
Now you're just making an ass of yourself rather than manning up to the truth that you don't know very much at all about the topics being discussed! If you don't like my vocabulary, which is a natural blend of Aussie and American English and has been since birth in Eastern Nebraska 71 years ago you bloody wanker bitch, stick it up your bleeding ass. You're a joke pretending to be something you aren't you miserable phony!APPROVAL YOU BLOODY IDIOT!Your question is meaningless. A judge gave his blessing to a married couple means just that. I enjoy reading your points. They are wonderful assertions.what does "bless" mean in a secular context?
What is "gave his blessing"? What does that mean? (Secularly speaking, of course.)
Okay, so we're supposed to secure the approvals of liberty?
Or maybe we're supposed to secure liberty that has been approved?
But we're supposed to have an inalienable right to liberty... so why would that require approval?
And what's with this "bloody idiot" crap? Are you a Brit up in here arrogantly trying to tell me about my own Constitution? ...Go work on your teeth you limey bastard.
Are you really that stupid and ill informed? Here was the law of the land then until 1865, fool!Slavery existed because, regrettably, the SCOTUS failed to properly interpret the language of the Constitution with regard to our founding principles. Self-evident truth is hard to deny. Presidents, congresses and courts couldn't do it. Even a war couldn't do it. Eventually self-evident truth prevails. All men ARE created equal and endowed rights by their Creator. The Constitution wasn't flawed, men who interpreted it incorrectly were.
US Constitution;
Article, § 2, Clause 3
"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Article I, § 2, Clause 3
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons". [slaves]
First slave act of Congress - Fugitive Slave Act of 1793
Slavery was a part of the Constitution until 1865 when Amendment XIII was ratified and certified, dimwit! It had nothing to do with the Courts being the Law of the Land. Slavery continued to exist after ratification of the Constitution because it was written into the Constitution. It was nothing more than a compromise with the devil himself himself, and the human misery it caused is unimaginable and a stain on this Nation. You really don't know jack shit, you bloody creature!!!!
Oh my goodness... are we having an argument that slavery was legal from 1776-1865? I had no idea that was what we were debating. You see, we were talking about founding intent being secular or non-secular. So how did we end up here? I think you were attempting to make some lame point that the Constitution didn't hold true to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal because it allowed slavery. The thing is, it was impossible in 1782 to abolish slavery. Madison would have loved to... that's why he carefully crafted a Constitution that allowed that whenever society was ready.
Over the next century, the SCOTUS reviewed several cases in which they continued to uphold slavery. Congress deliberated several bills and acts to further institutionalize slavery. I'm well aware of history.... but eventually, the self-evident truth prevailed. The brilliance of Madison was realized by people like Frederick Douglass. It was precisely because of the non-secular spirit in which the Constitution rests that slaves were ultimately freed.
Hey dummy, you broached that topic to dodge the topic of discussion you fucking idiot in your post #88 and continued in your post #125! I went along with it to let you hang yourself by that smoking petard hanging half way out your bloody ass waiting for it to explode! And explode it did!. And your dishonest conclusion displays you were caught out, fool! That's how we got here IDIOT! Need a white cane to find your way?Oh my goodness... are we having an argument that slavery was legal from 1776-1865? I had no idea that was what we were debating. You see, we were talking about founding intent being secular or non-secular. So how did we end up here? I think you were attempting to make some lame point that the Constitution didn't hold true to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal because it allowed slavery. The thing is, it was impossible in 1782 to abolish slavery. Madison would have loved to... that's why he carefully crafted a Constitution that allowed that whenever society was ready.
You bloody idiot! Slavery was the Law of the Land when the 1st Congress convened in March 1789! Let me repost this because you didn't read it the first time I posted it to you, obviously!Over the next century, the SCOTUS reviewed several cases in which they continued to uphold slavery. Congress deliberated several bills and acts to further institutionalize slavery. I'm well aware of history.... but eventually, the self-evident truth prevailed. The brilliance of Madison was realized by people like Frederick Douglass. It was precisely because of the non-secular spirit in which the Constitution rests that slaves were ultimately freed.
Are you really that stupid and ill informed? Here was the law of the land then until 1865, fool!Slavery existed because, regrettably, the SCOTUS failed to properly interpret the language of the Constitution with regard to our founding principles. Self-evident truth is hard to deny. Presidents, congresses and courts couldn't do it. Even a war couldn't do it. Eventually self-evident truth prevails. All men ARE created equal and endowed rights by their Creator. The Constitution wasn't flawed, men who interpreted it incorrectly were.
US Constitution;
Article, § 2, Clause 3
"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Article I, § 2, Clause 3
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons". [slaves]
First slave act of Congress - Fugitive Slave Act of 1793
Slavery was a part of the Constitution until 1865 when Amendment XIII was ratified and certified, dimwit! It had nothing to do with the Courts being the Law of the Land. Slavery continued to exist after ratification of the Constitution because it was written into the Constitution. It was nothing more than a compromise with the devil himself himself, and the human misery it caused is unimaginable and a stain on this Nation. You really don't know jack shit, you bloody creature!!!!
Oh my goodness... are we having an argument that slavery was legal from 1776-1865? I had no idea that was what we were debating. You see, we were talking about founding intent being secular or non-secular. So how did we end up here? I think you were attempting to make some lame point that the Constitution didn't hold true to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal because it allowed slavery. The thing is, it was impossible in 1782 to abolish slavery. Madison would have loved to... that's why he carefully crafted a Constitution that allowed that whenever society was ready.
Over the next century, the SCOTUS reviewed several cases in which they continued to uphold slavery. Congress deliberated several bills and acts to further institutionalize slavery. I'm well aware of history.... but eventually, the self-evident truth prevailed. The brilliance of Madison was realized by people like Frederick Douglass. It was precisely because of the non-secular spirit in which the Constitution rests that slaves were ultimately freed.Hey dummy, you broached that topic to dodge the topic of discussion you fucking idiot in your post #88 and continued in your post #125! I went along with it to let you hang yourself by that smoking petard hanging half way out your bloody ass waiting for it to explode! And explode it did!. And your dishonest conclusion displays you were caught out, fool! That's how we got here IDIOT! Need a white cane to find your way?Oh my goodness... are we having an argument that slavery was legal from 1776-1865? I had no idea that was what we were debating. You see, we were talking about founding intent being secular or non-secular. So how did we end up here? I think you were attempting to make some lame point that the Constitution didn't hold true to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal because it allowed slavery. The thing is, it was impossible in 1782 to abolish slavery. Madison would have loved to... that's why he carefully crafted a Constitution that allowed that whenever society was ready.
What the fuck does 1782 have to do with the Constitution (topic of discussion) and slavery (your dodge topic) other than making a statement of the absolute obvious? Not a Damn thing! The Revolutionary War was still going on and only ended after the preliminary peace treaty was ratified in April 1783 and the Treaty of Paris signed in September 1783! You don't have a fucking clue do you? I didn't believe you would answer after those 16 long seconds!
You wrote this absurd bit of shit to close the paragraph:
"Madison would have loved to... that's why he carefully crafted a Constitution that allowed that whenever society was ready."
Just what in the ever loving giant turd is that supposed to mean? That Madison some how set up within the original "Frame of Government" sent to the several States for ratification in the fall of 1787? Gawd your perfidy knows no fucking bounds!
You bloody idiot! Slavery was the Law of the Land when the 1st Congress convened in March 1789! Let me repost this because you didn't read it the first time I posted it to you, obviously!Over the next century, the SCOTUS reviewed several cases in which they continued to uphold slavery. Congress deliberated several bills and acts to further institutionalize slavery. I'm well aware of history.... but eventually, the self-evident truth prevailed. The brilliance of Madison was realized by people like Frederick Douglass. It was precisely because of the non-secular spirit in which the Constitution rests that slaves were ultimately freed.
"Are you really that stupid and ill informed? Here was the law of the land then until 1865, fool!
US Constitution;
Article, § 2, Clause 3
"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Article I, § 2, Clause 3
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons". [slaves]
First slave act of Congress - Fugitive Slave Act of 1793
Slavery was a part of the Constitution until 1865 when Amendment XIII was ratified and certified, dimwit! It had nothing to do with the Courts being the Law of the Land. Slavery continued to exist after ratification of the Constitution because it was written into the Constitution. It was nothing more than a compromise with the devil himself himself, and the human misery it caused is unimaginable and a stain on this Nation. You really don't know jack shit, you bloody creature!!!!"
Since Trump is self destructing and Hillary is poison, still how can one consciously vote liberalism
You're a true sadist you sick fuck!
Of course there is. It's a secular blessing. There is no such thing as the DOI is the Constitution.Boss, you don't get to use your own terms and definitions, and expect them to be accepted.
The judge blessed the couple. He is secular, so it is a secular blessing.
Boss, you do not understand the philosophy of the Constitution. Simple fact.
Bullshit. There is no such thing as a secular blessing. That's like an atheist prayer. It's nonsense that means nothing.
We are for the right regulations.Yes, we are for OVER regulations. We want more regulations than are necessary
Because liberalism by and large implies and deploys secular liberalism in this nation.
Secularism implies there is no room for God in political discourse or in public education. And any moral issue that hints at a religious value is considered bad for society by secular liberalism. So children are taught being gay is great, being bi-sexual is great, turning into a transgender is perfectly acceptable, premarital sex is totally expected with some precautions, and oral sex will be covered as well.
That is secularism taking over morality and the indoctrination of an abhorrent universal moral understanding. Don’t want to ever mention God, fine, don’t ever discuss matters that are not reading writing or arithmetic. When schools usurp the authority of parents and promote immoral practices it is wrong. When they whoosh kids off for secret abortions, that is an even more unspeakable crime.
Liberalism promotes illegal immigration and open borders, risks conservatives do not want to take with potential terrorists and also other trafficking. We want legal immigration only. We will fund them if we can afford it and the elected congress says it’s Ok.
Liberalism turns a blind eye to the unvetted Middle Eastern migrants coming in here by untold thousands. How insane is that? We already have tens of thousands of Arab men on student visas who we can no longer locate in this nation. Want a link?
Liberalism leads the parade against cops making them out to be this terrible racist menace. Do they care what fallout that brings? Heck no, because it assures the black vote. Are they coming down hard against the thugs in the Black Lives Matter demonstrations? Of course not. More racial divide.
Liberalism does nothing to stop Obama’s defunding of the military, reduction of troops, and demoralizing the entire military. Nor does it take the threats of terrorism or hostile nations near as seriously as conservatism does. Very misguided. National security is job one!
Liberalism is against increased offshore drilling, Alaskan drilling, fracking, keystone pipeline, nuclear plants, and are anti-coal. All these measures to please the gods of extrement environmentalism. This is so wrong. These are national security issues first and foremost. Dependence on Arab oil or other subversive nations should be done away with as soon as possible. Our economy would benefit enormously as well – again, liberals do not care.
Liberals are soft on crime and light on sentences. It is not conservative judges giving rapists, and violent criminals mitigated sentences and paroles. Worst of all, liberalism is far less likely to address the worst of crimes in this nation, urban gang violence. What conservative would be against a huge cop presence and very stiff sentences for these young offenders? You need to eradicate gang violence by attacking it vehemently. That is the only hope of stopping its perpetual presence. I think it is reprehensible children are afraid to walk to school, bus to school, or go outside in Chicago and other gang infested U.S. cities. Unforgivable! What has Obama ever said or done about that?? Not giving congress much credit here either, as it is.
Liberalism is insanely hung up on pushing transgenderism on this nation and its institutions. They are promoting a bizarre perversion that ruins lives. They push everything gay to the point of punishing anything that stands in its ways.
Liberalism has demanded legalized abortion and gay marriage. Both of these evolutions are an enormous affront to God. They are immoral and sinful, especially abortion, and with the government and our schools celebrating it all it influences children and society that this is all good. The worst of govt’s faults.
Liberalism is an enemy of Israel and an apologist for Islam. This is so cowardly and so wrong. Islam is the scourge and Israel is the perpetual victim and the world’s punching bag and scapegoat for their own sins.
Liberalism has taken the word God out of school out of our nation's history. No one can say the word, carry a Bible to school, mention the word Christmas or sing about it. Our Christian history and tradition is now treated like a pox on this nation. And all it takes is for one creep to sue.
Our universities are immersed in liberalism and its social engineering. Their course and the elitist snobbish liberal professors sicken me. They do anything but encourage dialogue and counter arguments. I have no interest in tax dollars funding that kind of enemy.
Liberalism allows a lying criminal like Hillary to get away with murder. Only because they have a corrupt mainstream media ready to do their bidding and support their every cover up and lie. This is a sickness that is killing America or has killed America.
Liberalism is weak on Islamic terrorism, of course no better example than our “coward in chief.” That bastard would not even march in Paris after Charli Hedbo with all the other heads of state of Europe and Israel and Palestine. No, he hid under his desk. And you guys give him another free pass. I don’t!
