2008 Political debate thread
- Thread starter scanner313
- Start date
- Status
I tried to say m0ral on the Alestorm forums and just got m****.
Seriously, what a dumb fucking filter
I wasn't pigeonholing. I never said that was always the case, I said "mostly".
And on the note of christian extremists, that is what I was saying except that I didn't use that term. There are many (not I said many, not all) conservatives out there that think America is "God's country" and that all of America's actions are "condoned by God". Like I was saying before, they try to mix religion with politics.
ABQShredHead
©1970
Applying the word "liberal" to Jesus? No, nay, not even close. Jesus corrected behaviors and led people to his Father's word. He did not stand for adultery (um, President Clinton???) nor any other sins. The manner in which he did turned people from sin, though, was absolutely admirable, as he did not judge the sinner. He left judgment for the only one who could judge - God. But he definitely worked toward correcting behaviors through Christian love. Do not try to twist his efforts into acceptance. Just look at his parting words for the adulterous woman who was about to be stoned - go forth and sin no more!
Liberals, in this day and age, seek acceptance for all behaviors and tolerance of all beliefs. Jesus was not at all tolerant of other beliefs outside the Bible.
Liberals, in this day and age, seek acceptance for all behaviors and tolerance of all beliefs. Jesus was not at all tolerant of other beliefs outside the Bible.
Ascension
New Metal Member
Whoops, my bad.
You forgot about what he said before that - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." When he said what you quoted we (as in my parochial school classmates and I) were always taught it was more of a "it's cool, just don't do it again" sort of thing, which is very radical for that time since when you think about it, if he wasn't there that lady would've been killed.ABQ said:
The Bible didn't even exist in the time of Jesus; he followed the teachings of the Torah. Cultures back then were more centralized. Jesus didn't know about tribal warfare in west Africa or what the Eskimos were up to. Acceptance and tolerance have been emphasized more due to our awareness of other cultures and that has come about through the magic of TV and the Internet. Also, bear in mind that tolerance isn't synonymous with agreement.
Jesus was a social liberal. If he were a social conservative, he would have been for preserving the traditional views and values of the time. That's what conservatism is. Jesus brought about a new social order, Christianity.
Beezlebub is right. His views seem conservative to you now. 2,000 years ago, they were radical. That's why Christians were persecuted early on.
Yeah, I don't want a religious discussion either. At least the topic is framed in a political perspective.
Beezlebub is right. His views seem conservative to you now. 2,000 years ago, they were radical. That's why Christians were persecuted early on.
Yeah, I don't want a religious discussion either. At least the topic is framed in a political perspective.
Phanto
Alalalalalalalala.
Please don't let this turn into a religious discussion. This forum has had enough of those
sadly religion is a political factor in the usa
This is exactly my view. I was going to vote 3rd party, but there is too much risk with Sarah Palin on the ticket. In addition to being a liar (bridge to nowhere, earmarks, etc), she simply isn't smart enough for the job. When asked about what insight to Russian actions (against Georgia) does the proximity of Alaska give her, she answered, "They're our next door neighbors! And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." Clearly the answer of a true scholar.
McCain's fear-and-smear campaign isn't helping his case either. It's a shame to see someone throw away a lifetime's worth of honor and dignity for a shot at more political power.
squidfetish
Member
Jesus was (alllegedly) a Jewish teacher teaching the Jewish law to fellow Jews - i.e. the Torah, as you said and as such would have been fairly conservative in his outlook. I think the new sort of outlook was more to do with the work of St.Paul than Jesus himself. At that point in history, messianic prophecy was very important and Jesus was one of many potential messiahs around at that time. Were it not for the work of St.Paul in spreading knowledge of Jesus, and in his literary works that came to become a large part of the bible, it is quite likely that the whole Jesus cult would have fallen flat on its ass and disappeared like the majority of the others.
And I would say that in the US religion and politics is at this time inextricably linked, which is very unfortunate, and also a bit of a kick in the teeth to the founders of the country who established the US along secular lines. So, it can be quite difficult to keep the 2 apart when religion is such a hot topic in politics and society. Hopefully common sense will eventually prevail and church and state be kept separate, but I ain't gonna hold my breath....
There will be an apocalyptic war in the name of religion before that happens.
Ascension
New Metal Member
The first 5 books of the Old Testament...that exists & is taught today.
squidfetish said:
In God We Trust. - on our currency
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
l believe our founding fathers would be proud...but what would l know...l'm just an American citizen.
squidfetish
Member
Jim Walker puts it better than me so I won't even bother to paraphrase....
"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion
by Jim Walker
Originated: 11 Apr. 1997
Additions: 26 Dec. 2004
Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.
Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Constitution
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.
Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:
Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [bold caps, mine]
Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.
If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.
Although many secular and atheist groups fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Declaration of Independence
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.
Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all get born with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are instituted among men."
The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.
Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone."
Thanks, I'm aware of what the Torah is. You pretty much proved my point by saying that it's just part of the Bible, as in it doesn't include the gospels, letters, revelations, etc. which were not around in the time of Jesus and what separate Christianity from Judaism.
See the tl;dr post above.
The "under God" part was added during the red scare and was not originally part of the pledge.
What?
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Just ignore him, he's another brainwashed zealot in a sea of brainwashed zealots. You said it right: religion is only an issue for people who make it one
and those are the people who are so insecure in their own beliefs, whatever they may be, that they have to make it their personal mission to eliminate all threats to said beliefs: convince everyone to remove all doubt.
and those are the people who are so insecure in their own beliefs, whatever they may be, that they have to make it their personal mission to eliminate all threats to said beliefs: convince everyone to remove all doubt.
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
Ken brought up an interesting point in our conversations about how people try so hard to maintain the status quo. Why? To what end? I just read an interview with one of the dudes from Angelcorpse that addresses that. Here's a few quotes that i found interesting and somewhat relevant to the topic at hand:
Isolate for us one of your deepest hatreds... what would it be?
I loathe ignorance. That is the main reason why things are as they are. Folks not only do not understand, they simply are not aware of what to understand. How can one instruct if the recipient is complacently unaware of the problem? It is tragic. And frightening. The 'wisdom' that popular culture teaches, the 'logic' that education teaches, the 'experience' that modern society teaches... Lies at best, foolhardiness otherwise. And yet we continue down this path; society continues to propel itself headlong towards the cliff. Lemmings?
Do you foresee a radical change on the horizon of society and man, a sort of social upheaval some might call 'doomsday?'
Cataclysmic change is always for the best. Neater, cleaner, more passionate and more thorough. When a 'new way' is debated, it is already defeated. All cycles fall as inevitably as they rose. And current trends and systems are showing cracks. That which is falling should be pushed. Thus spake Zarathustra.
Do you think a darker age is inevitable?
Indeed. Every day brings us closer. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
And probably my favorite:
There is an old Germanic saying, which we'll quote roughly for your comment: 'A young boy asks his mother; "Mother, how does one become famous...?" The mother looks to her son and replies: "There are two ways, build great civilizations, or destroy them..." What is your favorite conqueror of the past and why? And if you had the choice, would you build or destroy?
Savitri Devi, in her book "The Lightning and the Sun" discusses two great destroyers at length: Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler. In her eyes, both these figures were not merciless enough - they let too many slip from their grasp - perhaps due to their human fallibities. In many ways Devi is correct: a true conqueror, a true destroyer, often wages war purely for the sake of it. However, from this destruction should necessarily come creation. In the case of Europe, it was only after the defeat of Hitler's Germany (and the destruction and chaos that resulted in 6 years of warfare) that Western Europe rose to economic ascendance on a level with the US. Even in geo-political terms, Natural Selection dictates that which will survive. Thus National Socialism was a flawed and therefore doomed path. And ironically, the prosperity that Hitler so desired for Germany evolved after all, but not in the manner that he had set in motion in 1933. So what does all that mean? And what of my answer to the question? Destruction for the sake thereof - random, wanton, meaningless on the surface - wild, natural: pure. Without purpose. Without purpose? Never: to build things back a better way.
Change is inevitable. I don't know that i totally agree with everything this dude says, but nothing we've tried works. It might be worth a try.
And here's a link to the full interview if anyone cares for more insights.
http://www.mourningtheancient.com/angelc.htm
Isolate for us one of your deepest hatreds... what would it be?
I loathe ignorance. That is the main reason why things are as they are. Folks not only do not understand, they simply are not aware of what to understand. How can one instruct if the recipient is complacently unaware of the problem? It is tragic. And frightening. The 'wisdom' that popular culture teaches, the 'logic' that education teaches, the 'experience' that modern society teaches... Lies at best, foolhardiness otherwise. And yet we continue down this path; society continues to propel itself headlong towards the cliff. Lemmings?
Do you foresee a radical change on the horizon of society and man, a sort of social upheaval some might call 'doomsday?'
Cataclysmic change is always for the best. Neater, cleaner, more passionate and more thorough. When a 'new way' is debated, it is already defeated. All cycles fall as inevitably as they rose. And current trends and systems are showing cracks. That which is falling should be pushed. Thus spake Zarathustra.
Do you think a darker age is inevitable?
Indeed. Every day brings us closer. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
And probably my favorite:
There is an old Germanic saying, which we'll quote roughly for your comment: 'A young boy asks his mother; "Mother, how does one become famous...?" The mother looks to her son and replies: "There are two ways, build great civilizations, or destroy them..." What is your favorite conqueror of the past and why? And if you had the choice, would you build or destroy?
Savitri Devi, in her book "The Lightning and the Sun" discusses two great destroyers at length: Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler. In her eyes, both these figures were not merciless enough - they let too many slip from their grasp - perhaps due to their human fallibities. In many ways Devi is correct: a true conqueror, a true destroyer, often wages war purely for the sake of it. However, from this destruction should necessarily come creation. In the case of Europe, it was only after the defeat of Hitler's Germany (and the destruction and chaos that resulted in 6 years of warfare) that Western Europe rose to economic ascendance on a level with the US. Even in geo-political terms, Natural Selection dictates that which will survive. Thus National Socialism was a flawed and therefore doomed path. And ironically, the prosperity that Hitler so desired for Germany evolved after all, but not in the manner that he had set in motion in 1933. So what does all that mean? And what of my answer to the question? Destruction for the sake thereof - random, wanton, meaningless on the surface - wild, natural: pure. Without purpose. Without purpose? Never: to build things back a better way.
Change is inevitable. I don't know that i totally agree with everything this dude says, but nothing we've tried works. It might be worth a try.
And here's a link to the full interview if anyone cares for more insights.
http://www.mourningtheancient.com/angelc.htm
ABQShredHead
©1970
In my book, religion helps define your moral compass, which in turn influences the manner you vote.
All I see for the intent of our forefathers in drafting the separation of church and state is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It does not say an Executive branch member, for instance, cannot use his/her religious beliefs to guide their actions.
All I see for the intent of our forefathers in drafting the separation of church and state is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It does not say an Executive branch member, for instance, cannot use his/her religious beliefs to guide their actions.
- Status
