Religion-based Argument

dogooder said:
Then whats your beef, what gets you all riled up?. Did an immigrant steal your job?. Did a drag queen touch you in a bad place? Did a priest or your boyscout leader bugger you?. Did someone steal your tax money and give it to the Ukrainians? Were you bullied in school? Did your candidate lose?
Click to expand...
What’s your problem? Worry about you, not me.

I’m surprised that such a simple statement as I made earlier could create this amount of reaction.

Don’t like what I say? Ignore me. I’m not here to debate you. I prefer drive by postings :-)
 
Last edited:
brassplyer said:
Citizens are free to embrace any religious belief or no religious belief
Click to expand...
Serendipity Records said:
Yes -- not because religion has no role in politics, but rather because politics have no role in religion. See the distinction? The state cannot establish / enforce a religion the way the English did. There is nothing whatsoever about individuals not being allowed to act according to their religious convictions in political circles.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect as already discussed - no religious test to hold public office. And that goes both ways - Dems were out of line hammering Amy Barrett about her religious convictions and they should have been called on it and faced severe sanctions if not expulsion. Couldn't be any more unambiguously stated in the Constitution. I say this as an atheist who supports first trimester abortions. Presumably Dems took that tack since they couldn't find anyone to lie about her sexually assaulting them decades ago.

Serendipity Records said:
Now that is no accident. Actually inherent to the structure of the Constitution is recognition of a higher law / ideal which the Constitution attempts to interpret -- and doesn't fail in the least, I must say.
Click to expand...
Civics pop-quiz.

What's the central principle behind the founding the United States?
 
RFR said:
What’s your problem? Worry about you, not me.

I’m surprised that such a simple statement as I made earlier could create this amount of reaction.

Don’t like what I say? Ignore me. I’m not here to debate you. I prefer drive by postings :-)
Click to expand...
Then why are you answering me. You don't expect me to answer back? You seem like the one with the beef and the "problem". I am just wondering what is causing those beefs and that problem. You don't seem to want to answer so I will just put it down to your scoutmaster buggered you.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RFR
dogooder said:
Then why are you answering me. You don't expect me to answer back? You seem like the one with the beef and the "problem". I am just wondering what is causing those beefs and that problem. You don't seem to want to answer so I will just put it down to your scoutmaster buggered you.
Click to expand...
You and I have never had a decent conversation and probably never will.
 
RFR said:
You and I have never had a decent conversation and probably never will.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that and I have no problem with you, that is okay by me. Whatever gets you through the night, fall mountains, just don't fall on me.
Lets take a look at that simple statement.
"Most feel the same way about the LGBTQ movement. Yet it’s being shoved down our throats.
It IS the new religion."
I beg to differ and I would like to know what your beef is. The statement isn't that simple and seems to carry a lot of baggage.
Most? Who is most? Movement? The new religion?
Since you won't give me a reason for your beefs I have to chalk it up to being buggered by the camp counselor.
 
Last edited:
brassplyer said:
That's incorrect as already discussed - no religious test to hold public office.
Click to expand...
How is that incorrect? You're basically agreeing with what I said.

If someone states s/he is Catholic and gets elected, good on them, and you generally should be able to expect them to act in office according to their beliefs (unfortunately that doesn't seem to work with Biden haha).
brassplyer said:
That's incorrect as already discussed - no religious test to hold public office.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of a test?
 
Serendipity Records said:
How is that incorrect? You're basically agreeing with what I said.
Click to expand...
What you said is:

There is nothing whatsoever about individuals not being allowed to act according to their religious convictions in political circles.

You think Dianne Feinstein's blatant invoking of religion in her questioning of Amy Barrett was in keeping with “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”?





Btw I meant to address your other point about a "higher law".

There is no higher law than the Constitution. I assume you're not prepared to state that Islamic principles should hold sway?

What's the central principle behind the founding of the United States?
 
Last edited:
brassplyer said:
What you said is:

There is nothing whatsoever about individuals not being allowed to act according to their religious convictions in political circles.

You think Dianne Feinstein's blatant invoking of religion in her questioning of Amy Barrett was in keeping with “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”?
Click to expand...
Feinstein’s use of religion is not justified, violates the “no religious test”, and moreover is a singularly hypocritical incident. However, I should point out that my statement as quoted above does not allow for such abuses of “religion”. In somewhat more detailed terms, what I said is that 1) candidates should hold certain values publicly [I don’t care what they are, as long as they do hold them]; 2) We The People [voters] should be on the look-out for candidates whose values align with our own, and support those candidates; 3) once elected, those officials should act according to the principles they claimed to believe in when they ran for office. These principles include, but are not limited to, and can be inspired by, dictated by, or otherwise derived from, religious belief. That is perfectly aligned with the original meaning of “separation of Church and State”, by which the State cannot govern, openly support, claim to have sway over, or otherwise institutionalize a particular religion — which is the converse of what the common misconception is, that a church (or other religion, or “religiously inclined” person) is not allowed to express political views, support candidates, etc.
brassplyer said:
Btw I meant to address your other point about a "higher law".

There is no higher law than the Constitution.
Click to expand...
By “higher law” I mean a moral absolute / universal / “natural” law, not the “supreme law of the land” aka US Constitution. Even the least Christian of the founding fathers apparently believed in the “Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God”, yes? And only a psychopath would argue against this: that even if there were no manmade “laws”, it would be objectively wrong to steal, rape, lie, kill an innocent person (not even talking about abortion here) — i.e., anything that is for your personal benefit at the expense of someone else’s basic rights.
brassplyer said:
I assume you're not prepared to state that Islamic principles should hold sway?
Click to expand...
Luckily, Islamic principles cannot hold sway in America under the current structure of government. This is because the Constitution and DOI do not align themselves with, and indeed state rights that contradict, the very rudiments of Islam. May I once more point out that many of these rights originate from the Christian developments of civilization. All that said, if a muslim is able to garner enough support to be lawfully elected, I look forward to seeing how far they get in promoting Islamic principles in Congress lol.
brassplyer said:
What's the central principle behind the founding of the United States?
Click to expand...
Freeing a People from a tyrannical government which, among other things, had a history of enforcing a state religion? [I hope I got your point there?]
 
Serendipity Records said:
Feinstein’s use of religion is not justified, violates the “no religious test”, and moreover is a singularly hypocritical incident. However, I should point out that my statement as quoted above does not allow for such abuses of “religion”. In somewhat more detailed terms, what I said is that 1) candidates should hold certain values publicly [I don’t care what they are, as long as they do hold them]; 2) We The People [voters] should be on the look-out for candidates whose values align with our own, and support those candidates; 3) once elected, those officials should act according to the principles they claimed to believe in when they ran for office. These principles include, but are not limited to, and can be inspired by, dictated by, or otherwise derived from, religious belief. That is perfectly aligned with the original meaning of “separation of Church and State”, by which the State cannot govern, openly support, claim to have sway over, or otherwise institutionalize a particular religion — which is the converse of what the common misconception is, that a church (or other religion, or “religiously inclined” person) is not allowed to express political views, support candidates, etc.
Click to expand...
Besides the widely varying nature of what people consider to be "religious principles" - lots of conflict among for example Christians as to what those principles are supposed to be. Whatever one considers to be their "religious principles" - voters or those they elect, those principles can't - or at least they're not *supposed* to be allowed to put into action those principles if they're determined to be outside constitutional bounds.

Serendipity Records said:
By “higher law” I mean a moral absolute / universal / “natural” law, not the “supreme law of the land” aka US Constitution. Even the least Christian of the founding fathers apparently believed in the “Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God”, yes? And only a psychopath would argue against this: that even if there were no manmade “laws”, it would be objectively wrong to steal, rape, lie, kill an innocent person (not even talking about abortion here) — i.e., anything that is for your personal benefit at the expense of someone else’s basic rights.
Click to expand...
See below.

Serendipity Records said:
Luckily, Islamic principles cannot hold sway in America under the current structure of government. This is because the Constitution and DOI do not align themselves with, and indeed state rights that contradict, the very rudiments of Islam. May I once more point out that many of these rights originate from the Christian developments of civilization. All that said, if a muslim is able to garner enough support to be lawfully elected, I look forward to seeing how far they get in promoting Islamic principles in Congress lol.
Click to expand...
See below.

Serendipity Records said:
Freeing a People from a tyrannical government which, among other things, had a history of enforcing a state religion? [I hope I got your point there?]
Click to expand...
The fundamental principle of the United States is that people have rights and that the state exists to protect the rights of citizens. Citizens don't exist to serve the state.

Re: "Christian developments of civilization" - what comes to mind is the long history religion has of suppressing mankind's development. The inquisitions, persecution of Galileo and others, the bloody history of the Catholic church. As I mentioned previously look up the Index Librorum Prohibitorum - the list of banned books, thought you weren't allowed to be aware of - which you likely never heard of until I mentioned it. The church didn't even want people to read the Bible for themselves - William Tyndale who first translated the Bible into English was killed by the church for doing so. The very nature of religion is antithetical to the progress of humanity - belief based on tradition, social pressure and authority.

There's no model for a constitutional republic found within the Bible. A commonality between Christianity and Islam is that man is to serve the deity, i.e. the central authority - which is utterly antithetical to the central precepts of the US. Statist dictators simply substitute the central authority for the deity. Notice there's nothing in the DoI about servitude to this "Creator". Jefferson could have written "...that they are endowed by their Creator whom they serve/worship/kneel before with certain unalienable Rights..."

He doesn't say that. It's also clear that he's not referring to a biblical deity.

We have the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted between the Washington and Adams administrations and ratified unanimously wherein it's stated that the US government is in no way founded upon the Christian religion.

There's just no support for this notion of Christianity being at the core of the founding of the US.
 
Last edited:
Dave Matthews said:
Go for it! :-)
Page
Bonamassa,
I'm listenin'
Click to expand...
As far as better than Santana, we are going to need a bigger BBS, and back up thumbs to help compile the list. I especially love listening to him yammer non stop about his deep spiritual connection to music, while never advancing any further musically than the same couple of tired licks he has used in every song he has ever played on.
 
SHEPPARDB. said:
As far as better than Santana, we are going to need a bigger BBS, and back up thumbs to help compile the list. I especially love listening to him yammer non stop about his deep spiritual connection to music, while never advancing any further musically than the same couple of tired licks he has used in every song he has ever played on.
Click to expand...
C'mon now, tell us how you really feel. Joey B bores me to tears.
 
dogooder said:
R U kidding yourself, robbers don't follow Lucifer. Most of them are good Christians gone astray and all they have to do is ask Jesus
for forgiveness and they are forgiven. Lucifer don't work that way.
Click to expand...
Asking a fictitious deity to forgive you for worshipping another fictitious deity seems like a waste of time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top