Why Religion Must Be Banished....

[Moonglow]

I have to disagree with the op.

Regressives only want to eliminate Christianity and Judaism. They are neutral to slightly positive about Buddhism and support Islam quite actively.

Neither Buddhism nor Islam fall into the category of 'religion' in the sense of Judeo-Christian formulations.

Islam, for example, is a political movement.


Toqueville explained it thus:
Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science.

The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.”
Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.

Toqueville is wrong. The constitution is what prevents Christianity from being the operational dominant figure in American politics. Not Christianity itself.

Have you read "Democracy in America"?

Do you know who de Tocqueville was?

Or...are you simply one more boilerplate government school grad?

"No novelty in the United States struck me more vividly during my stay there than the equality of conditions"
Democracy in America,
Anchor Books edition, 1969

Would you like the first sentence from the authors to Vol. 2?

Considering the authors intro in Vol 1, in respect to the BLM protest movement, one must question the authority of Alexis in this topic sentence. .PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today.

"PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today."

And once again we have recapitulated our traditional 'Punch and Judy' play.....

And now for your next 'punch'....and lesson:


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


Learning isn't your 'thing'?
Well, then.....just be satisfied that you're the Michael Jordan of Chutes and Ladders.

1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

Still pissed over losing the slaves...

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. As posited in this thread, there are weak individuals who succumb to the emoluments and promises of evil itself. The short-sighted fail to recognize that as being the....superintendent.....behind these six:

Communism, Liberalism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, and Progressivism.




I love the works of John Connolly, whose novels always hint at the evil that inhabits this world, and the individuals who make agreements with evil:

Here he writes of one who accepted Satan's bargain.

" A new world would be waiting for you, your reward for all that you had done for us.’

And in the blackness of her eyes, Barbara saw the furnace flames, and smelled the smoke on the woman’s breath, and tasted burned flesh. Lies, all lies: any rewards were received in this life, not the next, and they were dearly bought. The price of them was the loss of peace of mind. The price of them was endless guilt. The price of them was the betrayal of strangers and friends, of lovers and children. Barbara knew: after all, she had looked for those who might be exploited, and formulated the agreements to which they appended their names and signed away their futures, in this world and the next.

Here: let me whisper to you. Listen to my truth. There is no salvation. There is no God. God is a lie. God is the name given to false hope. The entity that brought this world into being is long gone. We are all that remain, here and elsewhere.’"
"The Wrath of Angels," by John Connolly, p. 72-73




Were the elites who dominate the milieu to accept that, as stated in our Declaration of Independence, we owe our debt to the Creator, the Divine, or Providence....Him...then the nation would recognize the machinations of the obverse.....Evil.

And they can't allow that....
...so God, and religion must be banished.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have to disagree with the op.

Regressives only want to eliminate Christianity and Judaism. They are neutral to slightly positive about Buddhism and support Islam quite actively.

Neither Buddhism nor Islam fall into the category of 'religion' in the sense of Judeo-Christian formulations.

Islam, for example, is a political movement.


Toqueville explained it thus:
Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science.

The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.”
Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.

Toqueville is wrong. The constitution is what prevents Christianity from being the operational dominant figure in American politics. Not Christianity itself.

Have you read "Democracy in America"?

Do you know who de Tocqueville was?

Or...are you simply one more boilerplate government school grad?

"No novelty in the United States struck me more vividly during my stay there than the equality of conditions"
Democracy in America,
Anchor Books edition, 1969

Would you like the first sentence from the authors to Vol. 2?

Considering the authors intro in Vol 1, in respect to the BLM protest movement, one must question the authority of Alexis in this topic sentence. .PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today.

"PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today."

And once again we have recapitulated our traditional 'Punch and Judy' play.....

And now for your next 'punch'....and lesson:


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


Learning isn't your 'thing'?
Well, then.....just be satisfied that you're the Michael Jordan of Chutes and Ladders.

"F" as in failure ^^^

Poli Sci for the Dummy:

• Conservatives are slow to react and resist change
• Reactionaries want to return to an earlier time
• Liberals are visionary and ask, why not
• Rebels want change yesterday.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Neither Buddhism nor Islam fall into the category of 'religion' in the sense of Judeo-Christian formulations.

Islam, for example, is a political movement.


Toqueville explained it thus:
Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science.

The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.”
Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.

Toqueville is wrong. The constitution is what prevents Christianity from being the operational dominant figure in American politics. Not Christianity itself.

Have you read "Democracy in America"?

Do you know who de Tocqueville was?

Or...are you simply one more boilerplate government school grad?

"No novelty in the United States struck me more vividly during my stay there than the equality of conditions"
Democracy in America,
Anchor Books edition, 1969

Would you like the first sentence from the authors to Vol. 2?

Considering the authors intro in Vol 1, in respect to the BLM protest movement, one must question the authority of Alexis in this topic sentence. .PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today.

"PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today."

And once again we have recapitulated our traditional 'Punch and Judy' play.....

And now for your next 'punch'....and lesson:


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


Learning isn't your 'thing'?
Well, then.....just be satisfied that you're the Michael Jordan of Chutes and Ladders.

"F" as in failure ^^^

Poli Sci for the Dummy:

• Conservatives are slow to react and resist change
• Reactionaries want to return to an earlier time
• Liberals are visionary and ask, why not
• Rebels want change yesterday.

Liberals are simply one more iteration of communists.

They stand for the same things that the Bolsheviks did, and use the same methods: coercion, force, bludgeoning of those who don't bend the neck and knee to their elites.

You, just one more dunce who refuses to see the truth, and/or tell the truth.




Now....while you're here....can I get you to autograph your picture?

 

[K9Buck]

...you really seem to be struggling with answering the simplest of questions...

Libtards don't answer questions.

 

[K9Buck]

They made the mistake of aligning themselves with the worst of despotic leaders...

You mean like the founding fathers?

 

[westwall]

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen


The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.


Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Back to June 1998 - Vol 57, No. 6

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

lol.... you just bit the big one on this thread, superchicky.................

Me thinks you are not understanding what Jefferson was saying in that letter. Perhaps you should take a class in the English language, and how it has changed over the centuries. What Jefferson is stating is that the GOVERNMENT may not proclaim a NATIONAL RELIGION (like the Anglican Church as an example, or Sharia for a more modern analog), but that he honors the religion of those who were praying for him.

 

[Moonglow]

They made the mistake of aligning themselves with the worst of despotic leaders...

You mean like the founding fathers?

The church was not aligned with the Founders as it was in European nations.

 

[Moonglow]

Toqueville is wrong. The constitution is what prevents Christianity from being the operational dominant figure in American politics. Not Christianity itself.

Have you read "Democracy in America"?

Do you know who de Tocqueville was?

Or...are you simply one more boilerplate government school grad?

"No novelty in the United States struck me more vividly during my stay there than the equality of conditions"
Democracy in America,
Anchor Books edition, 1969

Would you like the first sentence from the authors to Vol. 2?

Considering the authors intro in Vol 1, in respect to the BLM protest movement, one must question the authority of Alexis in this topic sentence. .PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today.

"PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today."

And once again we have recapitulated our traditional 'Punch and Judy' play.....

And now for your next 'punch'....and lesson:


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


Learning isn't your 'thing'?
Well, then.....just be satisfied that you're the Michael Jordan of Chutes and Ladders.

"F" as in failure ^^^

Poli Sci for the Dummy:

• Conservatives are slow to react and resist change
• Reactionaries want to return to an earlier time
• Liberals are visionary and ask, why not
• Rebels want change yesterday.

Liberals are simply one more iteration of communists.

They stand for the same things that the Bolsheviks did, and use the same methods: coercion, force, bludgeoning of those who don't bend the neck and knee to their elites.

You, just one more dunce who refuses to see the truth, and/or tell the truth.




Now....while you're here....can I get you to autograph your picture?

View attachment 152235

If that be true, where are all the collectivist farms in the USA?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen


The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.


Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Back to June 1998 - Vol 57, No. 6

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

lol.... you just bit the big one on this thread, superchicky.................

Me thinks you are not understanding what Jefferson was saying in that letter. Perhaps you should take a class in the English language, and how it has changed over the centuries. What Jefferson is stating is that the GOVERNMENT may not proclaim a NATIONAL RELIGION (like the Anglican Church as an example, or Sharia for a more modern analog), but that he honors the religion of those who were praying for him.

The Baptists had a realistic fear, as several states had official state religions.

1. In the colony of Virginia, preaching was illegal without a state license. Baptists were regularly arrested and fined. Quakers were outlawed, as were Catholics.
   1. Maryland became a land of exile for a variety of Christian groups since Virginia enforced conformity to the Church of England.
   2. Presbyterian preachers moved into Virginia and became a challenge to Anglican dominance, and grew vindictive toward the dissenting competitors. By the early 1760’s, there was a reluctant acceptance- but it turned on the Baptists.
2. Massachusetts and Connecticut established the Congregationalist (Puritan) church by law, whereas many of the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies made the Anglican Church their official denomination.
   1. In Puritan New England, Anglicans, Baptists, Quakers, and Catholics were unwelcome….Rhode Island became a haven for outcasts and refugees fleeing Puritan justice.
   2. ‘Rhode Islandism’ became synonymous with religious disorder. John Adam’s diary, December 29, 1765.
3. By the time of the Civil War, Baptists, along with Methodists, would be two of the largest Protestant denominations in America.
4. By any estimation, most of the early colonies did not embrace religious freedom! Madison and Jefferson were two of the Enlightenment liberals who rallied to the cause of the persecuted Baptists, and with evangelicals and others, supported disestablishment.
   1. In 1771, a writer calling himself ‘Timoleon,’ in Purdie & Dixon’s Virginia Gazette, argued that dissenters should have protection under English law, and he argued that multiple denominations made Virginia society healthier: “Liberty of conscience is the sacred property of every man.” To take it away makes one a tyrant.
5. In early 1776, as the colonies began to organize independent government, they began to think of statements of basic liberties, and Madison helped craft the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which became the impetus for shedding the establishment of a faith, and the tradition of persecution.
   1. George Mason has proposed that the Declaration provide full toleration for dissenters, but Madison would settle for nothing less than “free exercise of religion” for all.
   2. At this time most of Virginia’s leaders still wanted an Anglican [to be called the Episcopal Church after independence] establishment along with the free exercise of religion. P.53
   3. Jefferson explained that “at the time of the revolution, most had become dissenters from the established church but still had to pay contributions to support the pastors of the minority.” “Thomas Jefferson Autobiography,” Ford (ed.), p. 52.
6. The movement or religious liberty would succeed in American because evangelicals, rationalists, and deists fought for it together.
   1. Although Madison was a fervent Anglican during the early years of the Revolution, he drifted toward deism or Unitarianism later in life. Jefferson was very skeptical about the Bible and traditional doctrines such as that of the Trinity

See chapter two.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. "We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown.

But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.

Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!"
Abraham Lincoln
March 30, 1863




None of these stand by those words:

Communism

Socialism

Liberalism

Fascism

Nazism

Progressivism.



And now you know why.

 

[K9Buck]

Neither Buddhism nor Islam fall into the category of 'religion' in the sense of Judeo-Christian formulations.

Islam, for example, is a political movement.


Toqueville explained it thus:
Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science.

The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.”
Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.

Toqueville is wrong. The constitution is what prevents Christianity from being the operational dominant figure in American politics. Not Christianity itself.

Have you read "Democracy in America"?

Do you know who de Tocqueville was?

Or...are you simply one more boilerplate government school grad?

"No novelty in the United States struck me more vividly during my stay there than the equality of conditions"
Democracy in America,
Anchor Books edition, 1969

Would you like the first sentence from the authors to Vol. 2?

Considering the authors intro in Vol 1, in respect to the BLM protest movement, one must question the authority of Alexis in this topic sentence. .PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today.

"PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today."

And once again we have recapitulated our traditional 'Punch and Judy' play.....

And now for your next 'punch'....and lesson:


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


Learning isn't your 'thing'?
Well, then.....just be satisfied that you're the Michael Jordan of Chutes and Ladders.

"F" as in failure ^^^

Poli Sci for the Dummy:

• Conservatives are slow to react and resist change
• Reactionaries want to return to an earlier time
• Liberals are visionary and ask, why not
• Rebels want change yesterday.

Spoken like a bona fide FOOL.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen


The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.


Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Back to June 1998 - Vol 57, No. 6

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

lol.... you just bit the big one on this thread, superchicky.................

You failed to see a couple things:

I reciprocate your kind prayers

common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.


Jefferson believed in God.

The US was founded by people that believed in God.

They even knew that without God in people's lives, more government is necessary, they didn't want that.

 

[BreezeWood]

rewriting the bible was impracticle in 1776, that is no longer the case if cristians are unable to remedy the inequities in that book for societies well being the task should be done without their consent.

for future prosperity the contiued apliction of the present 4th century publication should be prohibited - under laws prohibiting child abuse.

Probably oughtta tackle the fetuscide issue first...

.

Probably oughtta tackle the fetuscide issue first...

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton.

that issue since before civilization has been resolved, you simply disagree with the verdict that does not relegate servitude as the plausible outcome the decision serves instead to humanize, religiously. the same as reconciling the corrupt 4th century christian bible you cowardly refuse to "tackle" yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

rewriting the bible was impracticle in 1776, that is no longer the case if cristians are unable to remedy the inequities in that book for societies well being the task should be done without their consent.

for future prosperity the contiued apliction of the present 4th century publication should be prohibited - under laws prohibiting child abuse.

Probably oughtta tackle the fetuscide issue first...

.

Probably oughtta tackle the fetuscide issue first...

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton.

that issue since before civilization has been resolved, you simply disagree with the verdict that does not relegate servitude as the plausible outcome the decision serves instead to humanize, religiously. the same as reconciling the corrupt 4th century christian bible you cowardly refuse to "tackle" yourself.

What possible reason would you have to allow one person to murder another?

Unless you subscribe to the law of the jungle.......Leftism.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Toqueville is wrong. The constitution is what prevents Christianity from being the operational dominant figure in American politics. Not Christianity itself.

Have you read "Democracy in America"?

Do you know who de Tocqueville was?

Or...are you simply one more boilerplate government school grad?

"No novelty in the United States struck me more vividly during my stay there than the equality of conditions"
Democracy in America,
Anchor Books edition, 1969

Would you like the first sentence from the authors to Vol. 2?

Considering the authors intro in Vol 1, in respect to the BLM protest movement, one must question the authority of Alexis in this topic sentence. .PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today.

"PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today."

And once again we have recapitulated our traditional 'Punch and Judy' play.....

And now for your next 'punch'....and lesson:


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


Learning isn't your 'thing'?
Well, then.....just be satisfied that you're the Michael Jordan of Chutes and Ladders.

"F" as in failure ^^^

Poli Sci for the Dummy:

• Conservatives are slow to react and resist change
• Reactionaries want to return to an earlier time
• Liberals are visionary and ask, why not
• Rebels want change yesterday.

Spoken like a bona fide FOOL.

My undergrad degrees are Poli Sci and US History, what are yours?

 

[K9Buck]

Have you read "Democracy in America"?

Do you know who de Tocqueville was?

Or...are you simply one more boilerplate government school grad?

"No novelty in the United States struck me more vividly during my stay there than the equality of conditions"
Democracy in America,
Anchor Books edition, 1969

Would you like the first sentence from the authors to Vol. 2?

Considering the authors intro in Vol 1, in respect to the BLM protest movement, one must question the authority of Alexis in this topic sentence. .PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today.

"PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today."

And once again we have recapitulated our traditional 'Punch and Judy' play.....

And now for your next 'punch'....and lesson:


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


Learning isn't your 'thing'?
Well, then.....just be satisfied that you're the Michael Jordan of Chutes and Ladders.

"F" as in failure ^^^

Poli Sci for the Dummy:

• Conservatives are slow to react and resist change
• Reactionaries want to return to an earlier time
• Liberals are visionary and ask, why not
• Rebels want change yesterday.

Spoken like a bona fide FOOL.

My undergrad degrees are Poli Sci and US History, what are yours?

I have a PHD in owning morons like you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"No novelty in the United States struck me more vividly during my stay there than the equality of conditions"
Democracy in America,
Anchor Books edition, 1969

Would you like the first sentence from the authors to Vol. 2?

Considering the authors intro in Vol 1, in respect to the BLM protest movement, one must question the authority of Alexis in this topic sentence. .PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today.

"PC uses the past with the reverence of a true believer, but what was considered true in past times, is not necessarily so today."

And once again we have recapitulated our traditional 'Punch and Judy' play.....

And now for your next 'punch'....and lesson:


1) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


Learning isn't your 'thing'?
Well, then.....just be satisfied that you're the Michael Jordan of Chutes and Ladders.

"F" as in failure ^^^

Poli Sci for the Dummy:

• Conservatives are slow to react and resist change
• Reactionaries want to return to an earlier time
• Liberals are visionary and ask, why not
• Rebels want change yesterday.

Spoken like a bona fide FOOL.

My undergrad degrees are Poli Sci and US History, what are yours?

I have a PHD in owning morons like you.

You do? How come you don't know the proper abbreviation for a Doctorate Degree? But I'm sure it's a typo, isn't it Doctor?

In which U. did you matriculate, and in what field of study? Is your dissertation on line, many are, and I'd enjoy reading it.

 

[BreezeWood]

rewriting the bible was impracticle in 1776, that is no longer the case if cristians are unable to remedy the inequities in that book for societies well being the task should be done without their consent.

for future prosperity the contiued apliction of the present 4th century publication should be prohibited - under laws prohibiting child abuse.

Probably oughtta tackle the fetuscide issue first...

.

Probably oughtta tackle the fetuscide issue first...

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton.

that issue since before civilization has been resolved, you simply disagree with the verdict that does not relegate servitude as the plausible outcome the decision serves instead to humanize, religiously. the same as reconciling the corrupt 4th century christian bible you cowardly refuse to "tackle" yourself.

What possible reason would you have to allow one person to murder another?

Unless you subscribe to the law of the jungle.......Leftism.

.

What possible reason would you have to allow one person to murder another?

Unless you subscribe to the law of the jungle.......Leftism.

your strawman was explained, your interpretation simply distinguishes your ignorance rooted in the artificial and corrupt religions of past centuries you are unable to overcome.

 

[hadit]

You can find uncounted instances where somebody claimed a miracle happened that didn't. Big deal, so can I. That doesn't negate the miracles that are seen.

God doesn't play 'do a trick'. You're in a great position there, totally insulated from needing to acknowledge anything. All you have to do is simply deny anything you don't want to admit.

Well, that's pretty awesome, isn't it? He's not actually required to do anything, but gosh darn it, we will give him credit for everything from your Cancer going into remission to the Virgin Mary appearing on a grilled cheese sandwich. And he needs Money. He always needs money!

What an absolutely low standard for an omnipotent being.

You see, the thing here is that it really isn't my job to prove your extraordinary claims of a magic man in the sky who performs "tricks". You guys are the ones making extraordinary claims, using as "evidence" a book with Zombies, Talking Snakes and Giants. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Now, would it be nice if there was a magic man in the sky who cares about us and wants us to be good? Um, yeah, that would be nice. It would be nice to see all our loved ones in the afterlife.

What you guys are short on is proof that any of that is you know, true.

Would you accept proof that only you could verify is true, or would you refuse to believe yourself?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk