Why do the God-haters persist?

[Uncensored2008]

Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.
Are you against them as well?
No background checks encourage the type of people that will kill indiscriminately.
Are you for them?

Mindless platitudes encourage the type of people who vote for and support tyrants - clealy you are for them...

 

[Uncensored2008]

33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.

Comrade; how many of those are shootings by cops?

"So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."

Right there.

By the way:

National Guard

The Guard dates back to 1636, when Citizen-Soldiers formed militias to defend community and country. And for 377 years, the Guard has stayed true to its roots.

Comrade, are you saying that you want to disarm the peasants so that the party may slaughter them without resistance? Kinda that Khmer Rouge Killing Field thingy you Communists are so found of perpetrating?

 

[Uncensored2008]

A semi-automatic rifle with a 20 round cartridge, in any hands, has the potential to kill twenty people indiscriminately. And yet they are completely legal in most, in not all, states. When you say state Militias, I assume you are not talking about the National Guard (which, in my opinion is the only Constitutionally valid state militia that truly exists), because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that private militias (which is what you are really talking about) have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government of the United States.

Comrade, you appear to not know the meaning of the word "indiscriminate."

Well, hatred and stupidity are the twin pillars of leftism, after all.

 

[thebrucebeat]

33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.

Comrade; how many of those are shootings by cops?

"So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."

Right there.

By the way:

National Guard

The Guard dates back to 1636, when Citizen-Soldiers formed militias to defend community and country. And for 377 years, the Guard has stayed true to its roots.

Comrade, are you saying that you want to disarm the peasants so that the party may slaughter them without resistance? Kinda that Khmer Rouge Killing Field thingy you Communists are so found of perpetrating?

In 2011, 607 deaths were attributed to gunfire by police.
Next.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.
Are you against them as well?
No background checks encourage the type of people that will kill indiscriminately.
Are you for them?

Mindless platitudes encourage the type of people who vote for and support tyrants - clealy you are for them...

Tellingly, neither of you respond to the questions.

 

[Clement]

The Federalist Papers are not U.S. law.

Didn't say they were. Legal briefs which outline civil and criminal code are also not U.S. law. There is a difference between what is the law and what is the outline for the law. This is why we have lawyers and constitutional scholars, and don't depend on idiots who frequent message boards.

"Separation of Church and State" is not US law, either, but the shriek it every chance they get, don't they?

 

[Boss]

Again, there has to be an interpretation, a determination of how the founders intent jibes with modern weapons. Obviously the founders did not know the many forms that weaponry would take over the years. Would you agree that the SCOTUS must make that kind of determination when a relevant case comes before them?

This is what I have said since the first comment I made on this. The SCOTUS can use the Federalist Papers to determine founding intent and rule accordingly. The FF did know there would be a question as to what the limitations should be on all freedoms, not just this one. And the FP are where those are ironed out in very specific detail. It is not just arbitrarily up to the SCOTUS to "interpret" their own ideas into the Constitution.

As far as killing indiscriminately, the likelihood of such a thing is going to vary widely. The type of weapon is only one factor; the skill and experience of the user, the physical condition of the user, the number of attackers, the location of the attack, etc. all can have an effect on whether a weapon is likely to kill indiscriminately. Obviously a nuclear bomb is more likely to do so than a pistol, but given the right circumstances (firing in the middle of a large crowd, for example) a pistol has a pretty good chance of doing the same. Again, someone must make those kinds of judgements as the cases arise.

Again, you are focusing on "kill indiscriminately" and ignoring context. Firing into the middle of a crowd is an ACTION... the pistol didn't take the action. Nor is firing into a crowd typically a defense of your property, life or freedom, unless the crowd is attacking them. Apparently I did a poor job of trying to explain the intent of the founding fathers on this. I've read extensively on this because I was curious about it myself... where do our "rights to bear arms" become limited or restricted by anyone, if the Constitution says they can't be infringed? Why can't an individual own a nuke? And it's because the nuke has the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not just "defend" your life and property. The right we have to bear arms is for defense of life, property and freedom. If in the normal usage of the weapon for that intent, it has the likely capacity to indiscriminately kill innocent people who pose no threat to your life, property or freedom, it is out of the range of what is covered by your constitutional right. Yes... the SCOTUS has the authority to look at the Federalist Papers and determine what the FF intended. That is ALL they are supposed to do.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Again, there has to be an interpretation, a determination of how the founders intent jibes with modern weapons. Obviously the founders did not know the many forms that weaponry would take over the years. Would you agree that the SCOTUS must make that kind of determination when a relevant case comes before them?

This is what I have said since the first comment I made on this. The SCOTUS can use the Federalist Papers to determine founding intent and rule accordingly. The FF did know there would be a question as to what the limitations should be on all freedoms, not just this one. And the FP are where those are ironed out in very specific detail. It is not just arbitrarily up to the SCOTUS to "interpret" their own ideas into the Constitution.

As far as killing indiscriminately, the likelihood of such a thing is going to vary widely. The type of weapon is only one factor; the skill and experience of the user, the physical condition of the user, the number of attackers, the location of the attack, etc. all can have an effect on whether a weapon is likely to kill indiscriminately. Obviously a nuclear bomb is more likely to do so than a pistol, but given the right circumstances (firing in the middle of a large crowd, for example) a pistol has a pretty good chance of doing the same. Again, someone must make those kinds of judgements as the cases arise.

Again, you are focusing on "kill indiscriminately" and ignoring context. Firing into the middle of a crowd is an ACTION... the pistol didn't take the action. Nor is firing into a crowd typically a defense of your property, life or freedom, unless the crowd is attacking them. Apparently I did a poor job of trying to explain the intent of the founding fathers on this. I've read extensively on this because I was curious about it myself... where do our "rights to bear arms" become limited or restricted by anyone, if the Constitution says they can't be infringed? Why can't an individual own a nuke? And it's because the nuke has the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not just "defend" your life and property. The right we have to bear arms is for defense of life, property and freedom. If in the normal usage of the weapon for that intent, it has the likely capacity to indiscriminately kill innocent people who pose no threat to your life, property or freedom, it is out of the range of what is covered by your constitutional right. Yes... the SCOTUS has the authority to look at the Federalist Papers and determine what the FF intended. That is ALL they are supposed to do.

Two questions.
Where does it say in the COTUS that the Federalist Papers are to be consulted in legal determinations?
Where in the Federalist Papers does it make your case about individual defense of life, property or freedom? Quote it please, because I've read them.

 

[Boss]

Two questions.
Where does it say in the COTUS that the Federalist Papers are to be consulted in legal determinations?
Where in the Federalist Papers does it make your case about individual defense of life, property or freedom? Quote it please, because I've read them.

I'm on my way out the door and don't have time to look it up... it's in there, as I said.. Check Federalist 46, 23, 27 & 29. I believe it's one of those.

It doesn't say in the COTUS that the FP are to be consulted, it gives the SCOTUS the limited authority to rule on constitutionality. The FP are the outline and argument for everything in the Constitution, so this is the logical "source" by which the SCOTUS is appropriately authorized to consult. Anything other than the FP should have no bearing on the intent of the founding fathers.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Two questions.
Where does it say in the COTUS that the Federalist Papers are to be consulted in legal determinations?
Where in the Federalist Papers does it make your case about individual defense of life, property or freedom? Quote it please, because I've read them.

I'm on my way out the door and don't have time to look it up... it's in there, as I said.. Check Federalist 46, 23, 27 & 29. I believe it's one of those.

It doesn't say in the COTUS that the FP are to be consulted, it gives the SCOTUS the limited authority to rule on constitutionality. The FP are the outline and argument for everything in the Constitution, so this is the logical "source" by which the SCOTUS is appropriately authorized to consult. Anything other than the FP should have no bearing on the intent of the founding fathers.

Strikes one and two.
I looked those up already. It's none of those.
It doesn't say the FP are to be consulted, you're right.
It is simply what you wish.

 

[Boss]

Strikes one and two.

There's no strikes, we're not playing a game. Well... perhaps YOU are, but I'm not.

I looked those up already. It's none of those.

I believe it is, I may be wrong. It's in there, I've read it before, the main argument is either raised or addressed by John Locke. You see, every freedom has limitation, there is no such thing as totally unfettered and unrestricted freedom. The boundaries of those limitations are outlined in the FP, but they are very difficult to read and decipher because they used Colonial era language that we no longer speak. Since you have such a difficult time with the common language we DO speak, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't find it.

It doesn't say the FP are to be consulted, you're right.
It is simply what you wish.

Well it's not what I wish, it is as I said, the logical source for making determinations on what the Constitution is intended to mean. The Constitution is NOT a "living document" that changes in meaning over time. It's the law... the rules of the game. Would you like to play poker with me and have the rules of the game be "living?" I should think not.

The FP are the source files for determining the unambiguous meaning of everything written in the Constitution. Not a thing is left out or not addressed. It's beyond the authority of the SCOTUS to "interpret" meaning into the Constitution, they are supposed to rule according to founding intent as written. They have not always followed this course, and the further down the road we go, the more it seems to be that people like yourself, seeing the court stacked with left-wing justices, seem to be content to let it ride. The danger here is what can happen whenever the makeup of the court changes, and you don't like what a right-wing court starts "interpreting" into the Constitution. Our system works for the best when it is allowed to work under the rules as established. If you want to change something in the Constitution, do it by ratification.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Strikes one and two.

There's no strikes, we're not playing a game. Well... perhaps YOU are, but I'm not.

I looked those up already. It's none of those.

I believe it is, I may be wrong. It's in there, I've read it before, the main argument is either raised or addressed by John Locke. You see, every freedom has limitation, there is no such thing as totally unfettered and unrestricted freedom. The boundaries of those limitations are outlined in the FP, but they are very difficult to read and decipher because they used Colonial era language that we no longer speak. Since you have such a difficult time with the common language we DO speak, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't find it.

It doesn't say the FP are to be consulted, you're right.
It is simply what you wish.

Well it's not what I wish, it is as I said, the logical source for making determinations on what the Constitution is intended to mean. The Constitution is NOT a "living document" that changes in meaning over time. It's the law... the rules of the game. Would you like to play poker with me and have the rules of the game be "living?" I should think not.

The FP are the source files for determining the unambiguous meaning of everything written in the Constitution. Not a thing is left out or not addressed. It's beyond the authority of the SCOTUS to "interpret" meaning into the Constitution, they are supposed to rule according to founding intent as written. They have not always followed this course, and the further down the road we go, the more it seems to be that people like yourself, seeing the court stacked with left-wing justices, seem to be content to let it ride. The danger here is what can happen whenever the makeup of the court changes, and you don't like what a right-wing court starts "interpreting" into the Constitution. Our system works for the best when it is allowed to work under the rules as established. If you want to change something in the Constitution, do it by ratification.

You are a never ending source of absurdity.
First you categorically stated the specific papers we should go to.
Then it was "I think those are the ones, but I gotta go."
Now it's "I may be wrong, but trust me. It's in there somewhere."
Compelling.
Don't bother to walk it back either. I'll just quote you and humiliate you...again.
The "living document" vs. "original intent" argument is long standing and ongoing. People disagree. It is not a fait accompli as you pretend and wish it to be.
I detest what the current right wing court has done. I detest the ridiculous interpretations they have come to with no regard to the original intent, and not because they violate original intent, but because they have violated the American people.
But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done. They are, and only the power of amendment will change it.
You are under the same system and are free to be disgusted by whatever your imagined liberal court might do in the future, should that come to pass.
But they most certainly DO have that power, and crying about it and saying "I'm right, I'm right!" won't change that.

 

[Boss]

But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.

No, they are not.

 

[thebrucebeat]

But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.

No, they are not.

Oh, no?
How did they do it then?

 

[emilynghiem]

Two questions.
Where does it say in the COTUS that the Federalist Papers are to be consulted in legal determinations?
Where in the Federalist Papers does it make your case about individual defense of life, property or freedom? Quote it please, because I've read them.

By "free exercise of religion" and
"equal protection of the laws without discrimination by creed"
whatever people's beliefs are should be included under the 1st and 14th Amendment.

If someone uses the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Bible
Federalist writings etc. to explain what their beliefs are, that is up to that person.

If we only counted Christianity/the Bible or "established religions" as protected, then we would be guilty of discriminating against people whose beliefs draw from other resources.

So out of respect for people's beliefs, does it really matter what resources they cite?
Shouldn't all people's beliefs be treated with equal respect and inclusion?

 

[emilynghiem]

However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality.

No, they're not. We The People are the final judge. Sorry!

Yes and no.

By the letter of the law, the last stop is the Supreme Court.
If there is still a problem, we have to start over and
pass an amendment to change the law that the SC does not have
power to rewrite, only say yes or no.

In essence, I agree totally that the people have the ultimate check on all govt at all levels.
We are not automatons blindly following law and govt or that would be violating religious freedom.

Ultimately all authority of law and govt resides with the consent of the people.
This is a NATURAL LAW so you will see the democratic due process follow
the consent of the people, and bring about protest/objection/reform where
the consent of people has been violated or not represented and requires connection.

by the spirit of the laws and the democratic process
the people are the last check on govt; if we do not consent to a law or decision, then we will follow the laws to push for reform and correction.

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=18558]Gadawg73[/MENTION]
I would say the common denominator is
FEAR and unforgiveness

Religious teachings, where taught consistently as UNIVERSAL truth (not exclusionary tactics), help to OVERCOME fear with faith in greater truth and love for all humanity.
So they have been used for equal good.

if you are going to blame religion for being used as a weapon for war and destruction
isn't it fair to equally credit religion for preventing and recovering from war and destruction

No, that's a logical fallacy.

Most atheists live in communities that are held together by laws...laws that have their basis in religion.

So your assumption is not valid.

LOL, communities have been slaughtering each other since the inception of religion.
BECAUSE OF THEIR DIFFERENCES OF RELIGION.
If there is one common denominator of what TEARS APART communities over the last 4000 years it is RELIGION.
Where do you come up with your nonsense?
You WANT to believe this so it makes it true.

 

[emilynghiem]

But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.

No, they are not.

Oh, no?
How did they do it then?

The people in govt have free will to make decisions, whether they follow laws consistently or not. The DOMA and bans were not perfectly constitutional, but those legislators still used their capacity to write and pass those laws, even though these were ruled unconstitutional. Technically, as with contested mandates in ACA, these conflicts should be resolved BEFORE passing laws, instead of imposing biases that exclude other beliefs which is discrimination by creed and against Constitutional laws.

People run by "inertia" and will do what we want until something stops us. People in govt are no different.

Ideally, govt officials should check themselves, against the Constitution and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service by which partisan interests should NOT come before principle.

But our system is such that people are now using it more and more to push their agenda and wait for the other branches to check or change it.
(Corporate developers and the City of Houston have been getting away with this FOR YEARS because the people affected do not have legal resources to sue to stop them, so they go unchecked!)

I don't agree with this, and believe it is a wasteful abuse of power and resources that ultimately destroys integrity of govt and public trust.
It influences other people not to respect laws and authority, but do whatever we can get away with until the law stops us, which is what criminals do.

If there is a conflict with the law, that should be a sign to govt officials to RESOLVE the conflict FIRST, in order to write or reform the laws to reflect a consensual solution that addresses the objections, not "overrides them politically" as is happening now, left and right.

The driving force is 'consent of the governed" and the will of the people.
That is why people, politicians and parties are doing whatever they can within their capacity to push their agenda through all levels of govt they can reach.
They all want policies that reflect THEIR consent and represent THEIR beliefs.
Which is natural, as long as we include ALL people and beliefs equally in the democratic process.

The problem is we are NOT respecting the process, but abusing politics to bully opposition by coercion or exclusion,
instead of equally including and protecting all views and due process/right to petition for all people as the
Constitutional laws require. So then we rely on Courts or congress or votes/rulings
to "decide conflicts for us" instead of resolving issues directly with each other
where everyone is equally included, represented and protected. People on both sides of issues are abusing
political influence to manipulate and thwart the democratic process to get their way --
NOT what represents all the public as govt is authorized.

Because we the people are NOT following the Constitutional standards of equal protection, right to petition/due process,
and representation/consent of others equally as ourselves, that is why politics and govt have run amok and are no longer bound to represent our consent.
Then we respond by doing more of the same to override the people overriding us, and back and forth.

So that is what is driving it, human free will and desire to make sure our consent or beliefs are represented, but unfortunately at the expense of others where these laws are ignored.

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=37754]Hollie[/MENTION] I found 3 quotes of yours I wanted to respond to

A. one was about blaming Christianity for all the violent wars and killing

A. There is a book on "Saving Paradise" that points out the first 900+ years of the early church were about peace, brotherly love and paradise on earth, but around the 1000 year that's when the Crusade kick started with killing in the name of the Cross for politics.
This is not to be confused with the true message in Christianity.
It is more aligned with the warning in the Bible of the rise of the Antichrist
(also that Satan would be bound for 1000 years before being loosed again)

It is not fair to paint all Christianity in a bad light because of religious abuses.
Not all corporations are bad just because a lot of them abuse people and the environment.
The Constitution is not bad just because politicians and lawyers abuse power for greed.

The wrongs committed by abusing any law or religion are separate from the real meaning.

The violence committed by Buddhists against Muslims in the East is certainly
NOT what Buddhism is about or should be judged for.

Can I ask you to please make a distinction and not accuse the entire practice
because of the abuses of it?

The ignorant viewpoint of the time period is yours, actually.

You made a concerted effort to ascribe Christianity to folks such as Galileo, for one example. Are you really surprised that Galileo would be a “Christian” when the schools were run by the Church? Would you be similarly surprised to discover that students in a Pakistani madrassah were muslim?

I also found it curious to note that you… forgot…. to identify that Galileo was ruthlessly persecuted by the church for his works challenging the heliocentric model. He was forced to recant his life’s work at the business end of the church capos who made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. He spent the better part of the last decade of his life under house arrest.

We can go through others in your list that similarly ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma.

My point is, you are dismissing the fact that religious institutions have often been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths today than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that’s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions. Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

Do you want to know the time and date of every lunar eclipse for the 1,000 years? Well, you could ask an astronomer or, you could ask a prayer leader at the Pakistani madrassah.

B. as for science and faith,
Many Christians would agree with you in criticizing the church for these problems.
Please notice that they do so to DEFEND the true faith, not discredit the whole thing.

All the same arguments you make can also be used to defend true Christianity by
distinguishing it from false practices and abuses to oppress and contradict itself.

C. your other message about proving God and not just "in terms of a feeling" etc.

What I suggest is proving the process of spiritual healing
which is quantifiable and does show the difference it makes
with forgiveness on curing mental and physical illness.

This has been studied medically and can be proven scientifically by replicable research.

There is a difference between the negative energy in voodoo, sorcery witchcraft occult and other spiritism type practices and spells to try to effect change or cure people
vs.
the natural process of spiritual forgiveness, and deliverance from generational blockages
that otherwise prevent the mind and body from healing. by removing these blocks the results are facilitated healing, not just in the mind and body but also the person's relationships.

if you seek scientific proof that there is validity to the power of Christian prayer and healing, this is where I would focus. And I believe it would affirm America's key role in influencing the rest of the world by bridging the gaps between science and religion to reform the medical, mental health, and criminal justice systems by proving the natural healing process by which mental physical and criminal illnesses can be cured.

 

[BreezeWood]

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking.

hey emily, remove the one word above and what do you get ?

.