| Author | Message | ||
     Liquorwhere |
Midnight, My opinions are not religious based, I am an atheist. I don't know your unit in Korea, mine was HHC 1/506 INF Camp Greaves. Small light Infantry Unit on the DMZ. Stands alone and Currahee....anyway, none of that really matters. What matters in the discussion would be that some, not all may object to it. I personally don't care one way or the other, didn't then, don't now. What concerns me more is the prevailing attitude that while I am an atheist, this country was founded as a Christian nation, yes once we murdered and slaughter the natives to found it..I have heard all that. But we were founded that way, and while I have never had good experiences with overly braggadocios Christians either, I find them disingenuous most of the time and possibly the worst of all hypocrites, there is a large part of my upbringing that lends me to believe what is and what is not appropriate. This and other policies to one person is a sign of progress, to another the systematic dismantling of the moral fiber of our country. Again I don't have a dog in this fight anymore, so I will just say that I think it should've been left up to the commanders of each branch to decide this issue, not politicians. Again opinion... (Message edited by liquorwhere on December 21, 2010) | ||
| Geforce |
"This and other policies to one person is a sign of progress, to another the systematic dismantling of the moral fiber of our country." I think you managed to capture both sides of the argument entirely in one sentence. Work will be, "interesting" after exodus. I'm sure we'll have a whole new fleet of mandatory training and classes on this subject. | ||
| Blake |
Don, Maligning Christians based on perceptions of an opposing football team's behavior? Really? In comparing relative dishonesty of groups, none measure up to the dishonesty of most of the homosexual activists. None. Another leader in lies has always been the activist leftists. Their entire agenda is based on deceit and lies. In the light of truth, they cannot exist. It's why they so often turn to ad hominem, they know that their collectivist liberal ideas are uncompetitive. So then, what will be next on the agenda of the leftist worshipers of tolerance? Look for them to begin decrying "draconian" laws against incest and sex with minors via the age of consent. "Why should age or family relationship prevent a person from enjoying consensual use of one's own body for pleasure?" That will be their rallying cry. They will cite numerous "studies" showing no ill effect. "Abortion on demand, sexual gratification without limits, religion (mainly Christianity) is bad, the state is good, there is no God, corporations are bad, organized labor is good, the family is not important, we must work for the poor, everyone is a victim." How to destroy America. | ||
| Davegess |
How to destroy America. Conservative religious zealots are well on the way, no help from us liberals is needed! Although there are plenty will be glad to step up and support intolerance and bigotry; it is not exclusive to the Christian right. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Conservative religious zealots are well on the way... Have any examples to support that notion? | ||
| Blake |
What exactly is "the Christian right"? Is that the counter to the Communist left? Which is a threat to our freedom? | ||
| Midnightrider |
Blake Sorry man. I wasn't trying to malign all Christians. Just the hypocritical ones. Nor was it my intent to condemn Christians or believers in any faith or religion. I do rankle when someone tries to assert that their faith is the only truth. But that's another story and nobody here has done that. Surely there are dishonest folks with hypocritical behavior and hidden agendas on both sides of every polarizing issue. The statement that [most - implied not stated] activist leftists are deceitful and liars is probably a stretch but I think there is little one can offer on either side in the way of proof when we speak in these terms. Possibly goes back to the cornucopia thing. Or like proving Bigfoot does not exist. No one has proved it does, but simply impossible to prove it doesn't I don't see America or our society on the road to ruin. Just on the eternal up and down that is life. Some bumps are bigger than others and time will tell how we fare. I am sure we will take on all future issues with the same vigor as we do this one and I only hope to be around long enough to debate them here. The car is packed - gotta run Don | ||
| Davegess |
"If one of them ever looks at me like that I'll kill him and tell God he died." Jimmy Swaggert I may be wrong but it sounds just a little intolerant to me. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Surely there are dishonest folks with hypocritical behavior and hidden agendas on both sides of every polarizing issue. Agreed. My observations and analysis shows that one side, the leftists, employ dishonesty as a matter of course. They are deceitful to the core. I'm not talking about Democrats in general, just the collectivists. Hope your trip is great. | ||
| Blake |
Dave, How is that an example of the Christian right being "well on the way" to destroying America? I mean really, is that a view which is being pushed by the media and Hollywood elites, in academia? Does that view have powerful lobbying groups and political action committees, people in congress anywhere endorsing it? This is a perfect example of how liberal propaganda has successfully corrupted our perceptions. The only real and credible "threat" that the religious right poses in America is to the lies and deceit of the leftists. It turns out that the "religious right" are indeed right, meaning correct. Swaggert no more represents me or my views than does Bill Ayers represent yours. One of those two aforementioned men has/had a close relationship with our president is active in shadow political activist organizations, and is an admitted terrorist. Which is the more credible threat? Ever done any light reading on Ayers' organization, the weather underground? Democrats and Progressives. Did Swaggert really say that? What a sad human being. (Message edited by Blake on December 22, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
The reason I ask is that I am Christian, and I am on the right of the political spectrum on most issues, though not all. So when I hear that the "Christian right" is a threat to destroy America, I gotta scratch my head and wrinkle my brow and think, well only if that means returning to what originally made America so great, more freedom, less PC nonsense, more respect and acknowledgment of the role of our creator in bestowing our unalienable rights, more respect for family, more respect for states rights and limited federal powers. | ||
| Blake |
... and more respect for the lives of THE most helpless and THE most innocent, our unborn babies. | ||
| Eaton_corners |
George Washington1789 — First Inaugural Address Category: Religion and Morality The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. George Washington1796 — Farewell Address Category: Religion and Morality Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness. | ||
| Eaton_corners |
Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Paine Category: Religion and Morality If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it? Benjamin Franklin 1787 — Motion for Prayers in the Constitutional Convention Category: God I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? | ||
| Eaton_corners |
I could keep finding and posting these quotes. Which can be verified very easily. The point being that the people who designed our system of government believed that we needed to follow Gods instructions for living with one another. | ||
| Moxnix |
As opposed to "those thems, aka they" who celebrate, support and/or participate in the cultural sewage that, historically speaking, results in a sociatal breakdown. Oh, those pesky Christians. (Message edited by moxnix on December 21, 2010) | ||
| Aesquire |
This time of year I hear a lot about people who are "offended" by nativity scenes. Some are communist fools who desire no faith but that of the Holy State. Most are "atheists" who hit that point in their lives, ( usually between 12 and 14 ) when the hormones, combined with a little knowledge, have them rejecting the teachings of the elders. All children go through this phase at adolescence. Some freeze right there, and never search for a spiritual meaning. ( NOTE: this is only some atheists, not the norm...I think ) If they do search, they may find comfort in the embrace of uncertainty, and become a form of agnostic, others find solace in one of the Eastern teachings, and many others return to the religion of their parents, or find another way. Those are not the hurtful wretches who complain about nativity scenes, or the mention of another's faith because it "offends" them. Thats the arrested development crowd. They tend to deeply and faithfully believe in cons and scams, like "global climate change", "green antihuman ideology" or other secular leftist causes with a fervor normally associated with the Spanish Inquisition. If you believe in nothing you will believe in anything. A typical argument by these types ( not one I am making at this time ) is that it is stupid to worship an invisible giant with no proof of it's existence. Ok. That's one viewpoint.  Today I heard about another kind of anti-Christmas jerk. A so-called Christian preacher who burns Santa in effigy. He claims this Santa myth is evil and is a scam to commercialize and exploit his faith, an abomination for The Lord His God. So, I have to ask.....( in the context from above ).... Does the invisible myth that he claims dis's his invisible myth offend him on religious grounds....or practical, since I assume he is exploiting his faith so others pay his way in this world? Just asking.  In either case, they are jerks for trying to ruin Christmas for others. I wish they'd move to Iran, so they could see how good they had it here. The Westburo lawyers protest scam pretending to be a Church folk would also be far happier in Iran where there are no gay people. Their ruler said so. I heard DADT is over. About freaking time. Now we will have to deal with the moral issues and new protocols just as we have with Negro's and Women. It might take a while to get it right. But we can do it, I have a bit more faith in Americans than our Servants in Government that think they are Rulers. (Message edited by aesquire on December 21, 2010) | ||
| Hooaah |
Interesting quotes from Washington and Franklin. Certainly not disputing their wisdom or contributions. Yet neither was perfect Franklin is rumored to have been quite the philanderer. Unsubstantiated but it if looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....Both Washington and Franklin owned slaves. That is factual. Acceptable in their time, unacceptable in ours. And is not slavery sanctioned in the bible, Exodus 21: 7? Does anyone think that is really one of God's instructions on how to live together? I am not condemning Christianity or other any formal, recognized religion. I am suggesting that what society defines as morally acceptable behavior is not absolute and unchanging. And I think we are seeing that today with the repeal of DADT. Surely some will argue, and have argued, that the repeal was forced down our throats like other issues they do not support by an active and deceptive minority. I really don't see that as a logical or credible line of reasoning. Sounds more like a desperate and sad rationalization to me. I find it more plausible that they may simply underestimate the number of people who don't share their opinions. I guess it is the nature of the beast that some see the movement away from their ideals, beliefs and formal religion as societal breakdown while others see it as progress and societal evolution. | ||
| Blake |
I just read Franklin's autobiography. It says nothing of him owning any slave, nor have I ever heard that accusation before. Turning to ad hominem against two of the brightest and most heroic Americans is beyond the pale. To be Christian is not to be or to pretend to be perfect, it is to enter into a relationship of faith in our spiritual savior, Jesus Christ. None save his are without sin, none. Are you? Then by your standard, why should we give any weight to your words? Hmmm? Hope that gives some pause. Gossip and ad hominem have no place in thoughtful debate. Please stick to the issues. The "slavery" of the old testament has little in common with the African trade of America. It most resembled indentured servitude, something Franklin himself experienced, but fled. Maybe you can recall who it was in America who spoke out loudest advocating for abolition? Not an attack against religion you say? Well it was certainly not a fair commentary on it. I await the day when a critic of Christianity includes the truth of the many and massive good works of it's faithful or of the horrendous persecution endured over the millennia and still happening today. Wise up. The duck analogy seems fitting indeed.  | ||
| Moxnix |
>>that the repeal was forced down our throats like other issues they do not support by an active and deceptive minority. There is an appropriate turn of phrase in there. | ||
| Blake |
If homosexuality is immoral, then anything serving to promote its practice would then too be immoral. Anything that is inherently harmful to the institution of family likely qualifies as immoral. Anal sodomy is an unnatural, disease-prone, filthy practice. Just from a health perspective it is immoral. These are ALL facts, truths, though the lies and propaganda deny them. As I said above, next on the list is incest and age of consent. Do you doubt it? Bestiality is not far behind, All that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Freedom? Yes. Persecution? No. Endorsement? No! Formal recognition as equal to that which nature and God intend? No! That is just blasphemy, meaning against truth and of evil. Why should we not tolerate concentual incest? Why are we intolerant of sex with animals? We can kill and eat them but not enter a pleasurable relation with them? Why be so intolerant? Just because we don't like it, why punish others who do? If it feels good and we want to do it consentingly, why should it not be tolerated? | ||
| Hooaah |
An autobiography does not research make. A simple internet search will locate several sources, including Time magazine and PBS - those commies I'm not saying any of the religions I'm familiar with are without value. Never said nor implied. I remember recently hearing an NPR interview with retiring Supreme Court Stevens (you can read about it here) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=130198344 that discussed the concept of originalism in relation to the constitution "Stevens and Scalia have gone at each other on many subjects, but their core disagreement is over Scalia's espousal of originalism — the idea that the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to mean only what it meant at the time of enactment, no more and no less. Or, as Scalia puts it, "the Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead." " While Stevens countered "To suggest that the law is static is quite wrong," he says. Stevens argues that "the whole purpose was to form a more perfect union, not something that's perfect when we started. We designed a system of government that would contemplate a change and progress." I am arguing that neither the law nor our collective morality is static. Whether the issue be homosexuality (after all, homosexuality in the military started this thread, correct?), abortion, stem-cell research or issues that haven't arisen today will be dealt with and incorporated into our society and legal system by the elected legislators. If they fail to act in the way that their constituents want, they will be removed from office and replaced by legislators that do represent the folks who elect them. The system works. Blaming deceitful leftist activists when your minority viewpoint is outvoted is unsupported and unsupportable (Message edited by hooaah on December 22, 2010) (Message edited by hooaah on December 22, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
>>> collective morality There is no such thing. Do not confuse morality with popular opinion. Morality is that which is true and good. Popular opinion can be immoral. Popular opinion in California defines marriage as the committed union between one man and one woman. A few activist tyrannical judges decided otherwise. Your argument is unsupportable given a slew of recent events. The dishonesty of the homophiles concerning an opinion survey is the very issue that kicked off this thread. >>> the system works. Blaming deceitful leftist activists when your minority viewpoint is outvoted is unsupported and unsupportable Unless it is true and proven, which in this case it absolutely is. Where is the credible nationwide poll with the simple question, "is homosexuality immoral?" You won't likely find one anywhere. What you will find are poll questions like "should homosexuals be treated as second class citizens"? My "minority viewpoint"? See above challenge. Your ad hominem (accusation of philandering and slave ownership) against Franklin reminds me of the story that Thomas Jefferson fathered slave children, yet another gossip turned lie propagated by America haters, yes including PBS and other mainstream media. Regardless, out one side of the mouth comes the admonition that we should be not concerned about Bill Clinton's philandering and lies as president, but then out the other condemning and attacking the likes of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. The hypocrisy is outrageous. The difference being that one view attacked the deceitful misbehavior of a sitting president, a valid and very important concern. The other attempts to malign the achievements of American heroes, a truly miserable ad hominem. Relativism (morality changes with popular opinion) is a morally bankrupt philosophy, the favored view of Marxists, leftists, Communists, Socialists, Progressives. The founders view of the constitution was indeed that it should be a living document, buy only in the sense that they clearly defined and explicitly allowed, via amendment. They NEVER intended it's intent and meaning to be subverted or twisted as some judiciaries have unfortunately perpetrated upon us. But for those who lie and deceive as a matter of political survival, it is not surprising. They even sink so low as to subvert a law about interstate trade to enact their destructive redistributive/collectivist social agenda. It is outrageous. Still waiting for answers to my questions which you've conveniently ignored. Practicing Alinsky? (Message edited by Blake on December 22, 2010) (Message edited by Blake on December 22, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
"originalism" Making the meaning of law change to whatever is desired is tyranny. Period. Truth. Leftisms cannot abide the light of truth and so only operate successfully through deceit and tyranny. In order to overcome the rule of law, leftist judiciary lie and claim that they are interpreting law as they imagine it ought to read today. They are dishonest at the core. (Message edited by blake on December 22, 2010) | ||
| Spiderman |
Blake is just mad cause Samwell stole his theme song... | ||
| Boltrider |
The Huffingtonpost ran a story recently on a Columbia professor arrested on incest charges stemming from a sexual relationship with his 24 year-old daughter. In the members' comment section below the story, there were a surprising number of posts defending the professor's behavior. They said the "relationship" was between two consenting adults, and that incest laws shouldn't apply when those involved are of the age of consent. Gross, weird, and disturbing all come to mind. | ||
| Davegess |
"is homosexuality immoral?" You get your first NO vote here. You will get no argument from me about promiscuity but you will on this. The friend I have who are homosexual are no more immoral that you. Just wired differently. They can no longer control who they love then you can. It is not a choice; if it was I rather doubt anyone would chose it as it is a very tough life. Blake to answer your earlier questions, Swaggert did indeed say that, or rather I should say I heard him say it in a video on the internet. He would be what I consider the Christian right. A large number of evangelicals would also fall into this class. They do not accept anyone else belief as OK, they must accept Jesus Christ as a personal savior. The bible must be accepted as literal. (as an aside one of the funnier exchanges I have seen was between a serious evangelical trying to argue with a Catholic monk. The monk was having none of the personal savior, transforming acceptance of Jesus the guy was handing out and was returning every attempt to get him to accept the evangelical message into Catholic theological message. He had a far better understanding of the bible so was winning the bible quote battle and getting the guy very frustrated.) The Constitution is written is a deliberately vague manner, the entire document is open to interpretation. If it was not we would need no courts to decide what it means. The words are not what make this country work; it is our willingness to follow the rule of law outlined in that document. | ||
| Moxnix |
>>"is homosexuality immoral?" >>It is not a choice; if it was I rather doubt anyone would chose it as it is a very tough life. Sounds immoral to me for someone to live a very tough life. Is homosexuality "normal?" Well, of course we need a court to decide, as the majority of regular people are certainly not capable of discernment. So, homosexuality is certainly not amoral, or there would be no issue to debate. | ||
| Blake |
Dave, >>> The friend I have who are homosexual are no more immoral that you. That raises a very interesting issue, one that I think a lot of good, fair-minded folks wrestle with; I do too. If a friend committed adultery, but in all other behaviors behaved morally. He's our friend, and seems perfectly moral to us in our observations of his behavior. But that doesn't make adultery a moral behavior, does it? Isn't the same true of sodomy? >>> The Constitution is written is a deliberately vague manner, the entire document is open to interpretation. If it was not we would need no courts to decide what it means. The words are not what make this country work; it is our willingness to follow the rule of law outlined in that document. Wow! You (probably inadvertently) have hit upon one of the disagreements between Progressives and constitutional constructionists concerning the governing laws of our nation. "...the entire document is open to interpretation." Would you agree that it must only be interpreted according to its authors' intentions or would you contend that any interpretation one might imagine is acceptable? "If it was not we would need no courts to decide what it means." Courts are to "decide what (our constitution) means"? That is contrary to any description of the function of any American judiciary that I have seen. Are the courts not responsible for knowing what the law means? Is that not why they attend university and are so thoroughly vetted? Are the courts/judges not PRIMARILY responsible for deciding whether or not the law has been violated? | ||
| Blake |
Boltrider, When you do the research, you'll find that incest is already legal in a number of European nations. It is unbelievable. It will be next on the list. All this is happening according to old but very well entrenched long term Soviet Communist subversion strategy. The aim of the Communists was to destroy that which made America so incredibly strong and successful, religion, family values, and natural resources (the rabid activist green movement). They loved the ACLU. For near a century now, American Progressives have been the unwitting dupes of Soviet Communists. Now even decades after the crumbling of the USSR, the duped are still duping and carrying on. Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Barack Obama and friends. |
