Conservative Bible

[ding]

Too bad that wasn’t in effect when you supposedly took the oath.

sorry--served and am former active duty Marine

Nope. Already disproven. You never took the oath.

8 years in---
I guess I was dreaming it
hahahahhahahahhahaaaaa

Yes. You are dreaming.

it's exactly like your beliefs/god/etc - bullshit
hahahahhahahahhahahahha

And I am happy for you to believe that too.

 

[ding]

there's no such thing as an atheist because you cannot NOT believe in something that is not there

Atheists believe in humanity and it's infinite possibilities. Some call it humanism.

By definition that's a contradiction. Humanity does not have "infinite possibilities". Right now we can't make it much past 110 years. Right now we can't make it even to Mars.

Christianity believes you go live in the sky for eternity. Are you actually looking for rationality in a human belief system? I happen to believe humanity has doomed itself to extinction but more optimistic people have seen that any technological thing we can imagine will eventually come to pass.

That’s not exactly my belief. Maybe it’s just easier for you to build straw men.

I do not ridicule people for their personal beliefs but I have many significant problems with how religion is practiced and how it impacts secular policy. If you took any of my comments as an attack on anyone's personal faith it was not meant that way.

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

 

[occupied]

Atheists believe in humanity and it's infinite possibilities. Some call it humanism.

By definition that's a contradiction. Humanity does not have "infinite possibilities". Right now we can't make it much past 110 years. Right now we can't make it even to Mars.

Christianity believes you go live in the sky for eternity. Are you actually looking for rationality in a human belief system? I happen to believe humanity has doomed itself to extinction but more optimistic people have seen that any technological thing we can imagine will eventually come to pass.

That’s not exactly my belief. Maybe it’s just easier for you to build straw men.

I do not ridicule people for their personal beliefs but I have many significant problems with how religion is practiced and how it impacts secular policy. If you took any of my comments as an attack on anyone's personal faith it was not meant that way.

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

 

[ding]

By definition that's a contradiction. Humanity does not have "infinite possibilities". Right now we can't make it much past 110 years. Right now we can't make it even to Mars.

Christianity believes you go live in the sky for eternity. Are you actually looking for rationality in a human belief system? I happen to believe humanity has doomed itself to extinction but more optimistic people have seen that any technological thing we can imagine will eventually come to pass.

That’s not exactly my belief. Maybe it’s just easier for you to build straw men.

I do not ridicule people for their personal beliefs but I have many significant problems with how religion is practiced and how it impacts secular policy. If you took any of my comments as an attack on anyone's personal faith it was not meant that way.

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

 

[occupied]

Christianity believes you go live in the sky for eternity. Are you actually looking for rationality in a human belief system? I happen to believe humanity has doomed itself to extinction but more optimistic people have seen that any technological thing we can imagine will eventually come to pass.

That’s not exactly my belief. Maybe it’s just easier for you to build straw men.

I do not ridicule people for their personal beliefs but I have many significant problems with how religion is practiced and how it impacts secular policy. If you took any of my comments as an attack on anyone's personal faith it was not meant that way.

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

 

[ding]

That’s not exactly my belief. Maybe it’s just easier for you to build straw men.

I do not ridicule people for their personal beliefs but I have many significant problems with how religion is practiced and how it impacts secular policy. If you took any of my comments as an attack on anyone's personal faith it was not meant that way.

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

I don’t believe anyone is forcing you to join a religion, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[occupied]

I do not ridicule people for their personal beliefs but I have many significant problems with how religion is practiced and how it impacts secular policy. If you took any of my comments as an attack on anyone's personal faith it was not meant that way.

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

I don’t believe anyone is forcing you to join a religion, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

The force comes when political Christians try to make their narrow morality have the force of law. The list of things they would ban is as long as my arm.

 

[ding]

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

I don’t believe anyone is forcing you to join a religion, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

The force comes when political Christians try to make their narrow morality have the force of law. The list of things they would ban is as long as my arm.

It’s a secular society. Are you suggesting they should forfeit their rights to participate?

 

[ding]

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

I don’t believe anyone is forcing you to join a religion, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

The force comes when political Christians try to make their narrow morality have the force of law. The list of things they would ban is as long as my arm.

Do you think George Washington believed that people who believed in God should forfeit their vote?

George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens...”

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.

 

[ding]

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

I don’t believe anyone is forcing you to join a religion, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

The force comes when political Christians try to make their narrow morality have the force of law. The list of things they would ban is as long as my arm.

Do you think John Adams believed that people who believed in God should not vote?

John Adams, “Letter to Zabdiel Adams, Philadelphia, 21 June 1776”

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” John Adams Letter of June 21, 1776

The Works of John Adams – Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1854), 9:401.

 

[ding]

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

I don’t believe anyone is forcing you to join a religion, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

The force comes when political Christians try to make their narrow morality have the force of law. The list of things they would ban is as long as my arm.

Do you think that Samuel Adams believed that people who believed in God shouldn't vote?

Samuel Adams Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”

Paul H. Smith, Gerard W. Gawalt, Rosemary Fry Plakes, et. al., Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, volume 11, October 1 1778-January 31 1779.

 

[ding]

That’s not exactly my belief. Maybe it’s just easier for you to build straw men.

I do not ridicule people for their personal beliefs but I have many significant problems with how religion is practiced and how it impacts secular policy. If you took any of my comments as an attack on anyone's personal faith it was not meant that way.

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

Many people are confused with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was written for the express purpose of preventing the federal government from establishing a national religion which would interfere with state established religions, of which roughly half the states had at the time the Constitution was ratified. It was never intended to prevent states from establishing state religions. In fact, it was written to protect state religions. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

[occupied]

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

I don’t believe anyone is forcing you to join a religion, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

The force comes when political Christians try to make their narrow morality have the force of law. The list of things they would ban is as long as my arm.

It’s a secular society. Are you suggesting they should forfeit their rights to participate?

I think they should respect that the same separation that forbids the government from messing with them has long been considered to work both ways. They want everyone to have deep respect for their beliefs while having none for those who believe differently. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[ding]

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

I don’t believe anyone is forcing you to join a religion, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

The force comes when political Christians try to make their narrow morality have the force of law. The list of things they would ban is as long as my arm.

It’s a secular society. Are you suggesting they should forfeit their rights to participate?

I think they should respect that the same separation that forbids the government from messing with them has long been considered to work both ways. They want everyone to have deep respect for their beliefs while having none for those who believe differently. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

So I should not vote my conscience or values if my values are informed by my faith?

Do you get to vote your conscience and values?

 

[occupied]

I do not ridicule people for their personal beliefs but I have many significant problems with how religion is practiced and how it impacts secular policy. If you took any of my comments as an attack on anyone's personal faith it was not meant that way.

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

Many people are confused with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was written for the express purpose of preventing the federal government from establishing a national religion which would interfere with state established religions, of which roughly half the states had at the time the Constitution was ratified. It was never intended to prevent states from establishing state religions. In fact, it was written to protect state religions. Look it up if you don't believe me.

The original intent of the founders is of less importance than how generations of SCOTUS decisions have interpreted the constitution through case law.

 

[occupied]

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

I don’t believe anyone is forcing you to join a religion, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

The force comes when political Christians try to make their narrow morality have the force of law. The list of things they would ban is as long as my arm.

It’s a secular society. Are you suggesting they should forfeit their rights to participate?

I think they should respect that the same separation that forbids the government from messing with them has long been considered to work both ways. They want everyone to have deep respect for their beliefs while having none for those who believe differently. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

So I should not vote my conscience or values if my values are informed by my faith?

Do you get to vote your conscience and values?

Vote how you like but accept that many do not want to live under a religious code they do not believe in. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing born of free will not something that will land you in jail if you do not conform.

 

[ding]

I didn’t. But if you are seeking to subordinate religion you are no patriot.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes patriotism. I look around the world and note what happens when the religious establishment has a hand on the levers of power, it's nothing good.

Then you disagree with the founding fathers of liberty and freedom.

Not at all, they specifically resisted the establishment of a state religion because they were intimately familiar with the incredibly corrupt Church of England. They also had no love for the Calvinists, the evangelicals of the time. All this Christian nation stuff uses the founders as ammunition and their often contradictory thoughts on religion but it is really an argument that we as Americans do not have the right to be free of religious indoctrination. Practice as you see fit but leave me out of it.

Many people are confused with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was written for the express purpose of preventing the federal government from establishing a national religion which would interfere with state established religions, of which roughly half the states had at the time the Constitution was ratified. It was never intended to prevent states from establishing state religions. In fact, it was written to protect state religions. Look it up if you don't believe me.

The original intent of the founders is of less importance than how generations of SCOTUS decisions have interpreted the constitution through case law.

What case law?

The first amendment is still in full effect. It has not be repealed or re-written.

 

[ding]

I don’t believe anyone is forcing you to join a religion, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

The force comes when political Christians try to make their narrow morality have the force of law. The list of things they would ban is as long as my arm.

It’s a secular society. Are you suggesting they should forfeit their rights to participate?

I think they should respect that the same separation that forbids the government from messing with them has long been considered to work both ways. They want everyone to have deep respect for their beliefs while having none for those who believe differently. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

So I should not vote my conscience or values if my values are informed by my faith?

Do you get to vote your conscience and values?

Vote how you like but accept that many do not want to live under a religious code they do not believe in. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing born of free will not something that will land you in jail if you do not conform.

No one has proposed a theocracy. That would be a horrible idea.

But you can't stop people for voting their conscience. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. Whether you like it or not our foundation of law is based upon morality.

 

[occupied]

The force comes when political Christians try to make their narrow morality have the force of law. The list of things they would ban is as long as my arm.

It’s a secular society. Are you suggesting they should forfeit their rights to participate?

I think they should respect that the same separation that forbids the government from messing with them has long been considered to work both ways. They want everyone to have deep respect for their beliefs while having none for those who believe differently. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

So I should not vote my conscience or values if my values are informed by my faith?

Do you get to vote your conscience and values?

Vote how you like but accept that many do not want to live under a religious code they do not believe in. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing born of free will not something that will land you in jail if you do not conform.

No one has proposed a theocracy. That would be a horrible idea.

But you can't stop people for voting their conscience. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. Whether you like it or not our foundation of law is based upon morality.

No it isn't, it is based on ethical rationality. In extreme religions it can be considered righteous to murder heretics and unbelievers. Not saying the evangelicals have that in mind but you get the point. Morals can rationalize anything as good. Ethics on the other hand are much harder to twist into theocratic pretzels.

 

[ding]

It’s a secular society. Are you suggesting they should forfeit their rights to participate?

I think they should respect that the same separation that forbids the government from messing with them has long been considered to work both ways. They want everyone to have deep respect for their beliefs while having none for those who believe differently. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

So I should not vote my conscience or values if my values are informed by my faith?

Do you get to vote your conscience and values?

Vote how you like but accept that many do not want to live under a religious code they do not believe in. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing born of free will not something that will land you in jail if you do not conform.

No one has proposed a theocracy. That would be a horrible idea.

But you can't stop people for voting their conscience. We live in a shared society with shared consequences. Whether you like it or not our foundation of law is based upon morality.

No it isn't, it is based on ethical rationality. In extreme religions it can be considered righteous to murder heretics and unbelievers. Not saying the evangelicals have that in mind but you get the point. Morals can rationalize anything as good. Ethics on the other hand are much harder to twist into theocratic pretzels.

You mean like it is ethical to end a human life in the womb?