Dislike and distrust of atheists?

[Valjean]

You cannot defend Clinton by attacking Reagan or any other conservative politician. You can't make Hitler good by claiming Stalin was worse. Using that tactic is a very good indicator that you realize you cannot defend Clinton on her own merits. This is philosophy 101 stuff.

It was you who brought Reagan up. I was just trying to show you that your respect for him was unfounded. This was not a tu quoque.
My defense of the Clintons rests on the fact that they are the victims of a "vast, right wing conspiracy" of disinformation and manufactured scandals.

3. I do not believe the war in Vietnam was illegal. However even if it was then since Kennedy started our involvement that would make him a criminal. However the draft was legal.

Believe what you will, the facts stand on their own merit. The UN did not sanction the Vietnam war. Moreover, Vietnam was a manufactured war. The country did not threaten the US, the purported cause of the war was false, and the war was never declared by congress.

4. I served in the military, but I have no problem with people who do not want to kill their fellow man. However do so honorably, enter as a conscientious objector. Don't get your liberal buddies to recommend you for the R.O.T.C. then not even bother to show up.

.A fair objection. I think we're in agreement, here. As I said, Clinton should have taken a stand on one side of the fence or the other.

5. However that is not the extent of what he did, he actually protested against the US in all manner of contexts. Despite our many faults this country is the mightiest, most successful, and most benevolent in human history. It does not deserve hypocritical protests by a person who committed adultery in the oval office.

His protests were legitimate, and I think you're seeing the empire through rose colored glasses. We're the mightiest by virtue of military conquest and economic exploitation. I think you need to brush up on your history. The US is benevolent only when it suits its purpose, and the protests were principled, not hypocritical.

6. I am more than capable of defending Reagan and admitting where he failed, but his merits have nothing to do with the Clintons.

I agree, I was not trying to tie him into the Clintons. You misread my posts.

7. As for Alinsky he was a self described radical and stated in his book Satan was the original archetype of a radical.

But radical is a good thing, isn't it? The country was founded by radicals. Civil and women's rights were promoted by radicals. All the good things in US society were promoted by liberal radicals -- and opposed by conservatives.
Read your Alinsky. His advocacy for Satan was not of the Christian Satan, it was for Satan as a progressive archetype. Alinsky was not a religious man, he just liked tweaking people's sensibilities.

I have little time at the moment so I will stop here. You need to actually defend Hillary instead of trying to indict others and if you really wish to tackle that unenviable task then we must start at the beginning. Good luck.

Read my links. Do your own Google search. The Clinton scandals were overblown or manufactured as propaganda.
Please name a few and we can discuss them.

Objection to liberals- They are totally convinced their philosophy is right, so the end justifies the means. They love the concept of the re distribution of wealth, taking it from the people who have it, and giving it to those who do not, many of whom have made no effort to acquire any for themselves (theft).

Our philosophy is family values, kindness, compassion, equality. We promote Christian values, and believe the end does not justify the means -- that's a right wing value.
Conservatives believe in survival of the fittest, tribalism, competition and exclusion of the 'undeserving.'
Families redistribute wealth, they share. They don't throw grandma out when she becomes unproductive. Liberals see all of society as one big family; a co-op -- all for one, one for all. We don't see hoarding unneeded resources as meritorious.

They think of the US Constitution which was written to stand exactly as written, as a gumby document that can be twisted and bent to support their principles.

But that makes no sense. Gumby and 'exactly as written' are opposites. Gumby is flexible; originalism, rigid.
First, it's the conservatives who tend to support an originalist, inflexible interpretation. Liberals believe an inflexible constitution would act as a brake on a changing society.
That's not to say conservatives can't be flexible -- when it serves their purpose. Remember, conservatives believe the end justifies the means, so they'll resort to all sorts of creative legal interpretations to achieve an end that benefits their group.

They defy the will of the people on any number of issues by using implanted fellow travelers in the courts to discard the will of the the people.

No, the facts belie this. As liberals support the welfare of the 99%, conservatives support the 1%, the "economic royalists," as Roosevelt put it. US an Oligarchy not a democracy concludes Princeton Study - Tactical Investor

They demand special rights for selected groups of people, over those granted to all people in the Constitution.

No, we demand equal rights, not rule by the 1% of white, male landowners the founding fathers intended. It's the right wing that manipulates elections, packs elective offices at all levels with conservative supporters, and gives grants to universities provided their own, hand selected professors are installed.

They are happy to allow the murder of an innocent unborn human, but demand that guilty killers not be executed for their crimes. Because the end justifies the means, they give themselves permission to lie, to cheat, to misrepresent in bring they goals to fruition. They believe in the half who support the other half being continually drained of resources by increased taxation, so they can continue to give and give to the idle half in ways never intended , and never encoded in the Constitution. Just a few

Abortion of non-people and the killing people, for the crime of killing people, is a separate issue. I'll be glad to discuss it if you wish.
It's the conservatives who are wont to lie, cheat and misrepresent to achieve an end, not the principled liberals, and it was during the period of high taxation that America achieved its greatest prosperity. The taxes are not a drain. They're a pooling of funds to buy social services wholesale.
Your obsession with the idle, 'undeserving poor' is typical of conservatives, who are willing to compromise their own prosperity to punish freeloaders. This is punishment, not family values. If people are freeloading, address the problem, don't just summarily cut them off and force them into lives of poverty and crime (which will cost society more in the long run).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you want to see why we are so far in dept. Go to this link:

Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason

Scroll down to spending distribution. You will see that social programs went from 20% at the start of the early secular hippy movement and then at 2015 when those hippies are all grown up, it is now 65%. All other spending went down, despite the fact that our military protects half the world.

.

I know where the debt came from. We watched it explode in the 21st century. Hippies weren't involved. Men in suits as white shirts were.

A revolution is when a group vies for a significant portion of the power another group has, not that a few people in any particular group exist. We have had secularists since we were just colonies, however their power grab really began in earnest in the 50s.

You want to blame secularists for America's debt? Was it really that expensive the keep Americasafe from theocracy?[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE] IMO Trump will be a disaster, his only merit is that he wasn't as sadistic and evil as the Clintons are.[/QUOTE]

America narrowly dodged a bullet there. I understand that those sadistic Clintons like to roast puppies alive.

Who knows what Trump is doing with Russia, but at least Hillary's e-mails won't be a problem. And we may have a universe of conflict of interest in Trumps personals holding while president, but that pesky Clinton Foundation won't be seeing any more contributions for a person in office giving a speech.

And Benghazi! OMG Benghazi! I'm still reeling over Clinton giving the enemy the keys to the compound and floor plans of it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

United States Supreme Court


“This is a Christian nation”
– United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892


“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a Christian nation”
– United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892


Washington Monument


Holiness to the Lord (Exodus 28:26, 30:30, Isaiah 23:18, Zechariah 14:20)
– Washington Monument


Search the Scriptures (John 5:39)
– Washington Monument


The memory of the just is blessed (Proverbs 10:7)
– Washington Monument


May Heaven to this Union continue its beneficence
– Washington Monument


In God We Trust
– Washington Monument


“Praise be to God” (engraved on the monument’s capstone in Latin as “Laus Deo”)
– Washington Monument


James Madison – A Primary Author of the Constitution of the United States of America


“We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”
– James Madison


“Religion [is] the basis and foundation of Government”
– James Madison


“Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
– James Madison


Northwest Ordinance – July 13, 1787


Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
– Northwest Ordinance, Article 3


Original Harvard University Student Handbook 1636


Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well: the main end of his life and studies is “to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life” (John 17.3), and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of Him (Prov. 2.3).
– Original Harvard University Student Handbook


William McGuffy – author of McGuffy Reader, which was used for over 100 years in American schools as the primary textbook


The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our nation, on the character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free Institutions. From no source has this author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible, I make no apology.
– William McGuffy, author of McGuffy Reader


Congress – First Prayer in Congress


O LORD, OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, high and mighty King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who dost from Thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth, and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the kingdoms, empires and governments; look down in mercy we beseech Thee, on these American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor, and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring henceforth to be dependent only on Thee; to Thee they have appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support which Thou alone canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious design of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause; and if they persist in their sanguinary purpose, O let the voice of Thy own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the counsels of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation, that the scene of blood may be speedily closed, that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety prevail and flourish among Thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them, and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Savior. Amen.


– First Prayer in Congress September 7, 1774, Jacob Duche, Carpenters Hall, Philadelphia


Calvin Coolidge– President of the United States of America


“The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.”
– Calvin Coolidge


Harry S. Truman – President of the United States of America


“The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.”
– Harry S. Truman


“This Nation was established by men who believed in God. … You will see the evidence of this deep religious faith on every hand.’
– Harry S. Truman


Dwight D. Eisenhower – President of the United States of America


“Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic, expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be.”
– Dwight D. Eisenhower


“I believe that the next half century will determine if we will advance the cause of Christian civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism.”
– Theodore Roosevelt, President


“This is a Christian nation.”
– Harry Truman, President


“[The United States is] founded on the principles of Christianity”
– Franklin D. Roosevelt, President


Do you think a country that has been composed of between 70% and 90%, would lack a mountain of quotes like those.


Ronald Reagan – President of the United States of America


Of the many influences that have shaped the United States into a distinctive nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.
– Ronald Reagan


Deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible inspired many of the early settlers of our country, providing them with the strength, character, convictions, and faith necessary to withstand great hardship and danger in this new and rugged land. These shared beliefs helped forge a sense of common purpose among the widely dispersed colonies — a sense of community which laid the foundation for the spirit of nationhood that was to develop in later decades.
– Ronald Reagan


The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers’ abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible’s teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
– Ronald Reagan


For centuries the Bible’s emphasis on compassion and love for our neighbor has inspired institutional and governmental expressions of benevolent outreach such as private charity, the establishment of schools and hospitals, and the abolition of slavery.
– Ronald Reagan


“The Congress of the United States, in recognition of the unique contribution of the Bible in shaping the history and character of this Nation, and so many of its citizens, has by Senate Joint Resolution 165 authorized and requested the President to designate the year 1983 as the ‘Year of the Bible.'”‘
– Ronald Reagan


Inside the Bible’s pages lie the answers to all the problems that mankind has ever known. I hope Americans will read and study the Bible.
– Ronald Reagan

US History Quotes About God and the Bible

Do you actually believe that a nation composed of between 70% - 90% Christians will not produce a mountain of quotes similar to those above?

I believe that the founders intended to keep religion out their new government. I also believe that there is almost no overlap between foundational Christian principles and fundamental America principles. If I didn't, I would have no reason to stand by America. I don't consider Christianity a healthy ideology or one that I would risk anything defending.

That may shock of offend you, but it shouldn't. I reject Christianity's assumptions and values. They're not mine. I simply don't define love as being consistent with building a fiery torture pits full of demons, or requiring people to be tortured on a cross to satisfy a god intolerant of the behavior of its creation. That's a million miles from my idea of love.

And I don't want people that do to have influence over my life.

 

[Augustus]

I don't know much about that history. It isn't interesting or relevant to me.

It is highly relevant to the evolution of 'Christian' thought and consequently 2000 years of European thought though.

At least if you believe, new ideas are built on the intellectual foundation of previous ideas, which are based on the intellectual foundations of previous ideas, which are...

Neither. A prohibition on slavery cannot be found in the scripture.

That's the 2nd option "reasoning based on scripture does not count as Christian".

Are you going to suggest the Bible? Odd that we had to wait for the Enlightenment to see them, and then, with no help from the church.

Indirectly, yes. Not explicitly stated, but reasoning based on the implications of a certain, very specific aspect of scripture. This is by definition Christian theology which is not limited to mindless and narrow literalism. It doesn't seem too controversial to me to say that Christian theology is influenced by the Bible.

To add to this, I find it hard to make the argument that I know more about the thoughts and explicitly stated reasoning of a theologian from 1700 years ago than he did. As such, I have to take his explanation that his though is influenced by the Bible at face value seeing as there is no logical reason not to.

I also find it hard to credit Enlightenment Values for an idea that demonstrably existed (regardless of popularity) in the same cultural tradition 1300 years before the Enlightenment. I don't think it magically appeared from a vacuum based on empathy and reason 1300 years later 'because Humanism'.

"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense・- Edward Abbey

I'd disagree that it is either 'opaque' or 'plainly false' to believe that new ideas are built on the intellectual foundation of previous ideas, which are based on the intellectual foundations of previous ideas, which are...

I'm pretty sure you have stated the same view on the development of ideas. I'm just being consistent as I can't accept 'Reason & Empathy did it alone' as a rational explanation at any point in the chain.

That's why I was asking where you thought the idea came from and some evidence to support an alternative evolution. "Empathy and Reason" is a bit too much like 'God did it' for me as they mean nothing without a culturally specific worldview (which had to come from somewhere too).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is highly relevant to the evolution of 'Christian' thought and consequently 2000 years of European thought though.

At least if you believe, new ideas are built on the intellectual foundation of previous ideas, which are based on the intellectual foundations of previous ideas, which are...



That's the 2nd option "reasoning based on scripture does not count as Christian".



Indirectly, yes. Not explicitly stated, but reasoning based on the implications of a certain, very specific aspect of scripture. This is by definition Christian theology which is not limited to mindless and narrow literalism. It doesn't seem too controversial to me to say that Christian theology is influenced by the Bible.

To add to this, I find it hard to make the argument that I know more about the thoughts and explicitly stated reasoning of a theologian from 1700 years ago than he did. As such, I have to take his explanation that his though is influenced by the Bible at face value seeing as there is no logical reason not to.

So you can't conceive of a religious person crediting his Bible with his good ideas? Let him show me what part of his Bible he is referring to, how he got his idea from the Bible,and why other people reading the same words for centuries of not millennia misses that biblical message.

You see Christians today crediting the Bible with every good idea, including the US Constitution, with which it has virtually nothing in common. Should we have believed the founders that their ideas came from their Bibles had they felt the need to make such a claim for some reason, or should we look at what they are calling their source and inspirations, and make that judgment ourselves?

I also find it hard to credit Enlightenment Values for an idea that demonstrably existed (regardless of popularity) in the same cultural tradition 1300 years before the Enlightenment. I don't think it magically appeared from a vacuum based on empathy and reason 1300 years later 'because Humanism'.

Humanism was centuries in the formation. Some ancient Greek ideas were humanistic. It only emerged as a fully flowered world view in what is called the Enlightenment, a parallel development beside Christianity, one which touched and shaped Christianity as it still does today, but not vice versa.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'd disagree that it is either 'opaque' or 'plainly false' to believe that new ideas are built on the intellectual foundation of previous ideas, which are based on the intellectual foundations of previous ideas, which are...

I'm pretty sure you have stated the same view on the development of ideas. I'm just being consistent as I can't accept 'Reason & Empathy did it alone' as a rational explanation at any point in the chain.

That's why I was asking where you thought the idea came from and some evidence to support an alternative evolution. "Empathy and Reason" is a bit too much like 'God did it' for me as they mean nothing without a culturally specific worldview (which had to come from somewhere too).

Nothing more than reason and empathy are needed. How is that like "God did it"? Man did it like he does everything else he does.

You still want to call ideas by a Christian a development of Christianity. You want to say that any idea that comes after a Christian idea is an outgrowth of it dependent on Christianity.

I have rejected that about a half dozen times. There is no aspect of humanism that is or was dependent on Christianity, and no idea from Christianity that is part of humanism. There are overlapping areas such as the Golden Rule, but that idea didn't come from Christianity either.

That's my position, that's what I have been arguing. You have made you best argument in defense of Christianity having a critical and nurturative role in the evolution of humanist thought and Enlightenment values. I still don't see that connection. You haven't connected the Bible to the Affirmations of Humanism. The latter is essentially a rejection of the former, and I can see no way in which humanism can be called a branch of Christian thought.

The Christians make a similar argument when they try to claim science for Christianity by informing us that many of the original scientists were devout Christians. The argument is the same there: Just because Christians do it doesn't make it a derivative of Christianity. I think that it was with you that I asked how we get from Genesis, Micah, and Acts to F = ma. Whoever it was said that that was not the claim. I think it is. It is the implied claim, otherwise why mention that they were Christians?

What exactly is your claim about the relationship of humanism to Christianity that is different from mine? Can we assume that when Christians apply the methods of humanism - reason and empathy to arrive at moral conclusions rather than referring to scripture, that you consider that Christianity? Can we assume that you believe that humanism could not have arisen without the help of the ideas that Christianity is responsible for, and that without Christianity, there'd be no humanism? Exactly what did Christianity do for humanism? Why wouldn't we have it just as we do had Christianity never existed, or our roots been Buddhist instead?

At one point you implied a permissive rather than causative role for Christianity, but you seem to be advocating more of the latter lately, which is why I am asking you to clarify you claim

One can argue that humanism required the tyranny and oppression the Age of Faith, the Middle Ages, and its church dominated culture as an impetus to arise in reaction, but giving Christianity credit there would be like giving King George III credit for the American revolution.

 

[shmogie]

It was you who brought Reagan up. I was just trying to show you that your respect for him was unfounded. This was not a tu quoque.
My defense of the Clintons rests on the fact that they are the victims of a "vast, right wing conspiracy" of disinformation and manufactured scandals.
Believe what you will, the facts stand on their own merit. The UN did not sanction the Vietnam war. Moreover, Vietnam was a manufactured war. The country did not threaten the US, the purported cause of the war was false, and the war was never declared by congress.
.A fair objection. I think we're in agreement, here. As I said, Clinton should have taken a stand on one side of the fence or the other.
His protests were legitimate, and I think you're seeing the empire through rose colored glasses. We're the mightiest by virtue of military conquest and economic exploitation. I think you need to brush up on your history. The US is benevolent only when it suits its purpose, and the protests were principled, not hypocritical.
I agree, I was not trying to tie him into the Clintons. You misread my posts.
But radical is a good thing, isn't it? The country was founded by radicals. Civil and women's rights were promoted by radicals. All the good things in US society were promoted by liberal radicals -- and opposed by conservatives.
Read your Alinsky. His advocacy for Satan was not of the Christian Satan, it was for Satan as a progressive archetype. Alinsky was not a religious man, he just liked tweaking people's sensibilities.
Read my links. Do your own Google search. The Clinton scandals were overblown or manufactured as propaganda.
Please name a few and we can discuss them.
Our philosophy is family values, kindness, compassion, equality. We promote Christian values, and believe the end does not justify the means -- that's a right wing value.
Conservatives believe in survival of the fittest, tribalism, competition and exclusion of the 'undeserving.'
Families redistribute wealth, they share. They don't throw grandma out when she becomes unproductive. Liberals see all of society as one big family; a co-op -- all for one, one for all. We don't see hoarding unneeded resources as meritorious.
But that makes no sense. Gumby and 'exactly as written' are opposites. Gumby is flexible; originalism, rigid.
First, it's the conservatives who tend to support an originalist, inflexible interpretation. Liberals believe an inflexible constitution would act as a brake on a changing society.
That's not to say conservatives can't be flexible -- when it serves their purpose. Remember, conservatives believe the end justifies the means, so they'll resort to all sorts of creative legal interpretations to achieve an end that benefits their group.
No, the facts belie this. As liberals support the welfare of the 99%, conservatives support the 1%, the "economic royalists," as Roosevelt put it. US an Oligarchy not a democracy concludes Princeton Study - Tactical Investor
No, we demand equal rights, not rule by the 1% of white, male landowners the founding fathers intended. It's the right wing that manipulates elections, packs elective offices at all levels with conservative supporters, and gives grants to universities provided their own, hand selected professors are installed.
Abortion of non-people and the killing people, for the crime of killing people, is a separate issue. I'll be glad to discuss it if you wish.
It's the conservatives who are wont to lie, cheat and misrepresent to achieve an end, not the principled liberals, and it was during the period of high taxation that America achieved its greatest prosperity. The taxes are not a drain. They're a pooling of funds to buy social services wholesale.
Your obsession with the idle, 'undeserving poor' is typical of conservatives, who are willing to compromise their own prosperity to punish freeloaders. This is punishment, not family values. If people are freeloading, address the problem, don't just summarily cut them off and force them into lives of poverty and crime (which will cost society more in the long run).

I am not obsessed by the idle, I simply stated they exist, nor did I say ' "the undeserving poor", these are projections of liberal talking points. Lets look at this high prosperity you are so proud of producing by liberal means. Since Johnson began the alleged "war on poverty", billions and billions of dollars taken from those who earned it, and dispersed to "end poverty", has ended nothing. The poverty rate is higher. The responsibility for overseeing these magical programs has rested primarily with liberal officials in the large population centers with the highest number of impoverished people, in other words, perpetual liberal plantations. NOTHING has changed in fifty years. The money is doled out, disappears, and the people still live in squalid conditions, are infested by drugs, in terrible housing, surrounded by constant and chronic crime. One thing liberals have been successful at is convincing people they have a right to those food stamps and welfare checks, that they are a real achievement, thus the plantations remain well populated with politically complacent residents. In the United States we mostly all agree that education can be a critical element in success, and free education is provided. However,liberals are right in the middle of this as well, with one of their favorite group of collective shock troops, teacher unions. These folk are responsible for educating and preparing the children on the liberal plantations for a successful life. How have they done ? Well some of the plantation school districts have the highest per student budgets in the nation, and of the 80% that allegedly graduate from high school, a large proportion are functionally illiterate, totally ill prepared to live in a competitive environment. They return to the liberal plantations to start another generation of docile plantation democrats. Of course those who are responsible for the shoddy sand failed education are accountable, right ? No, no one can be disciplined, thanks to the unions virtually no one can be terminated. Mediocrity is the standard, mediocrity with demanding ever more and more resources to sustain it.Many plantation residents want good educations for their children, care very much about them living happy prosperous lives. They also totally recognize the failures of the schools they are required to send their children to. They are denied by the liberal directors of the plantation to use the taxpayer money given for their child's education an opportunity to select the best type of school they choose, no, it is only for the miserable schools and mediocre education . One of the definitions of insanity is repeating a harmful behavior over and over again, and expecting a different outcome each time. This is liberalism. No matter the outcome, they are "right". They are totally consistent in their premise of take more and more from those who have some, and it will get better for those who don't, and it never has been true. The highest corporate tax rates in the world, and the liberal president messiah put the nation in such debt that it is unforeseeable to imagine it will ever be repaid. liberals are obsessed with Robin Hood, take from those who are are self sufficient, and give it to those who are not. They have little interest in promoting accountability, discipline, responsibility and hard work. For them, any problem can be solved with just a larger shower of other peoples money.

 

[shmogie]

I’m so tired of hearing this absurd claim by conservatives that they are the “party for Constitutional values.”

Conservatives don’t understand that simply wanting something to be true doesn’t mean that it is. You are not the party of Constitutional values. Not even close. Just because you put a “God Bless America” bumper sticker on your vehicle and fly an American flag at your home doesn’t make you a patriot, and it damn sure doesn’t make you an advocate for our Constitution.

I read almost daily about some right-wing agenda that seeks to violate our Constitution. It’s pretty amazing how many conservatives, and their voters, support the stance to ignore and dismiss federal laws if they disagree with them.

What about Donald Trump’s ethical conflicts and violating the emoluments clause. Isn’t the emoluments provision of the constitution the law of the land?

Abortion? Well, we disagree with it, so we can try to violate the Constitutionally protected right a woman has over her own body.

The Affordable Care Act? Well, we disagree with it, so it’s okay to try and ignore that Constitutionally upheld law.

Religion in public school? Well, we think our country was founded on Christianity (even though the word Christianity doesn’t appear even once in our Constitution), so it’s okay to ignore the First Amendment and force religion (as long as it’s the Christian religion) into our public schools. Conservatives don’t like that minorities often don’t vote for their party, so it’s acceptable to try and change our Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitutional definition of what constitutes an American citizen.

Certain demographics don’t vote for us, so let’s find ways to make it harder for them to vote. Similar to poll taxes or tests once used to discourage certain voters from voting.

When they call themselves the “party of Constitutional values,” they simply have got to be joking.

The only amendment they really defend without question is our Second Amendment—and even then they ignore the entire first half of it and just focus on the last part.

Conservatives are for their interpretation of what they want the Constitution to be, not what it actually is. Conservatives have no problem ignoring our Constitution, or violating American rights, on issues of which they disagree.

It’s just laughable that the party which openly tries to defy Constitutionally protected rights whenever they disagree with them, flies this false banner of the party for “Constitutional values.”

The worst part is, deep down they really think “Constitutional values” means a nation ruled by theocracy (a theocracy built on their perversion of Christianity), denying women’s rights, opposing gay rights, changing the definition of what it is to be an American citizen. Sadly, they’re just becoming more and more extreme on these issues, and that’s a slap to the face of our Constitution and our country as a whole.

What an ignorant, bizarre, and frankly lying accumulation of moldy tripe. Where is your evidence for efforts to promulgate unconstitutional laws I mean, you read about them every day. "gay rights and women's rights" Where in the Constitution did you read about these ? I can only find rights guaranteed to all people, and we certainly don't want to deny any person of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. So you believe that because a foreign visitor rents a room at a Trump hotel that is a violation of the rule that says a President can't use his position for monetary gain ? Well, I don't see it, but why don't you find out for sure ? File suit. Abortion ? Well Roe v. Wade never addressed the murder of an unborn human, it created a right not found in the Constitution Privacy", saying that "privacy" screens the killing from legal scrutiny. Since the Declaration declares hat every person has the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", and murdering a person denies them this right, we want the issue not decided on some bogus word games, but on the issue of whether killing with premeditation an unborn human is murder. Also, if you think an unborn baby is " the mothers body", think again, it has a totally different genetic makeup than her body, and can have a different blood type. obamacare, you are certainly not saying that this is part of the Constitution. Congress enacts laws, they are constitutionally guaranteed the right to promulgate, modify, or eliminate law, that is their job. Any amendment to the Constitution can be changed following the Constitutionally prescribed procedure. If the requirement for citizenship is changed by this procedure, the change is part of the Constitution. Religion, as I have pointed out to you before, you are obsessed and irrational on this subject, so let me, one more time, try and clarify for you. Conservatives don't want a theocracy, we want everyone who has a religion to be able to practice theirs as they choose.The establishment clause isn't about the destruction of religion, it is about ensuring that the government not adopt by law, a specific religion. This has been used to do asinine things by those who are at war with religion. Allowing a group of Buddhist boy scouts to use a school room after school is establishing a religion ? Denying kids a " contemplative minute " in the morning is establishing a religion because some of them might pray ? The rest of your commentary is just bull****, opinion based upon the machinations of an ill informed and hopelessly biased warped mentality Unfortunately, you have no idea what you are talking about, but that doesn't stop you from talking

 

[Cobol]

Where is your evidence for efforts to promulgate unconstitutional laws I mean, you read about them every day. "gay rights and women's rights" Where in the Constitution did you read about these ? I can only find rights guaranteed to all people, and we certainly don't want to deny any person of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

You just answered your own question while contradicting yourself.

File suit.

Their already are multiple lawsuits.

if you think an unborn baby is " the mothers body", think again, it has a totally different genetic makeup than her body, and can have a different blood type.

Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant, but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.

Religion, as I have pointed out to you before, you are obsessed and irrational on this subject, so let me, one more time, try and clarify for you. Conservatives don't want a theocracy, we want everyone who has a religion to be able to practice theirs as they choose.The establishment clause isn't about the destruction of religion, it is about ensuring that the government not adopt by law, a specific religion.

We need to have a support a system where political decisions are made based on arguments that stand on their own merits without a religious crutch.

Religion is, after all, implicitly arrogant. It assumes it knows the truth, that its followers are saved and that the rest of us are deluded and even damned. Are we really going to sit by as faith movements demand “tolerance” for such views, and try to make us to submit to their wills? Whether religion offers solace to some isn’t the issue. The submission and control it seeks to impose is. Toss out the Supreme Being and we’re left with one set of humans striving to dominate another, and justifying themselves with ideology based on nothing but myth.

We need to expose those myths for the lies they are, political correctness be damned.

We’ve all heard, “This is my religion and it’s true for me.” Objectively, though, the my-religion-is-true-for-me line is false, of course. Jesus can’t be the savior for some, but not others. Muhammad cannot be the prophet of God for one group, but not another. There either is a God, or there isn’t – and there is not. There is no middle ground between truth and falsehood. None should be sought.

 

[Vroom]

I am not obsessed by the idle, I simply stated they exist, nor did I say ' "the undeserving poor", these are projections of liberal talking points. Lets look at this high prosperity you are so proud of producing by liberal means. Since Johnson began the alleged "war on poverty", billions and billions of dollars taken from those who earned it, and dispersed to "end poverty", has ended nothing. The poverty rate is higher. The responsibility for overseeing these magical programs has rested primarily with liberal officials in the large population centers with the highest number of impoverished people, in other words, perpetual liberal plantations. NOTHING has changed in fifty years. The money is doled out, disappears, and the people still live in squalid conditions, are infested by drugs, in terrible housing, surrounded by constant and chronic crime. One thing liberals have been successful at is convincing people they have a right to those food stamps and welfare checks, that they are a real achievement, thus the plantations remain well populated with politically complacent residents. In the United States we mostly all agree that education can be a critical element in success, and free education is provided. However,liberals are right in the middle of this as well, with one of their favorite group of collective shock troops, teacher unions. These folk are responsible for educating and preparing the children on the liberal plantations for a successful life. How have they done ? Well some of the plantation school districts have the highest per student budgets in the nation, and of the 80% that allegedly graduate from high school, a large proportion are functionally illiterate, totally ill prepared to live in a competitive environment. They return to the liberal plantations to start another generation of docile plantation democrats. Of course those who are responsible for the shoddy sand failed education are accountable, right ? No, no one can be disciplined, thanks to the unions virtually no one can be terminated. Mediocrity is the standard, mediocrity with demanding ever more and more resources to sustain it.Many plantation residents want good educations for their children, care very much about them living happy prosperous lives. They also totally recognize the failures of the schools they are required to send their children to. They are denied by the liberal directors of the plantation to use the taxpayer money given for their child's education an opportunity to select the best type of school they choose, no, it is only for the miserable schools and mediocre education . One of the definitions of insanity is repeating a harmful behavior over and over again, and expecting a different outcome each time. This is liberalism. No matter the outcome, they are "right". They are totally consistent in their premise of take more and more from those who have some, and it will get better for those who don't, and it never has been true. The highest corporate tax rates in the world, and the liberal president messiah put the nation in such debt that it is unforeseeable to imagine it will ever be repaid. liberals are obsessed with Robin Hood, take from those who are are self sufficient, and give it to those who are not. They have little interest in promoting accountability, discipline, responsibility and hard work. For them, any problem can be solved with just a larger shower of other peoples money.

I just started reading on this forum, and I've never read such ignorance in my life. Your simply embarrassing. What kind of an idiot are you?

 

[shmogie]

You just answered your own question while contradicting yourself.



Their already are multiple lawsuits.



Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant, but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.

I didn't contradict myself, you have no examples to provide of the things you read about every day, I think you are just telling a porky. I see, you are the one who determines what living entity is human, or not ? wow, does that job wear on you ? If a woman spontaneously aborts a baby at 7 months and it is alive in a neonatal intensive care, and she comes to the hospital to kill it, she will be arrested for murder. If a woman begins giving birth to a viable full term baby, and she decides to murder it, the doctor can kill it by stabbing it in the brain even if the head is out of the womb, I bet you just relish that thought, don't you ? In most jurisdictions, if a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is charged with two murders, oops, there goes your entire judgement about who is or isn't human.

We need to have a support a system where political decisions are made based on arguments that stand on their own merits without a religious crutch.

Religion is, after all, implicitly arrogant. It assumes it knows the truth, that its followers are saved and that the rest of us are deluded and even damned. Are we really going to sit by as faith movements demand “tolerance” for such views, and try to make us to submit to their wills? Whether religion offers solace to some isn’t the issue. The submission and control it seeks to impose is. Toss out the Supreme Being and we’re left with one set of humans striving to dominate another, and justifying themselves with ideology based on nothing but myth.
Again, your ignorant paranoia is showing. You can no more prove there isn't a God, than you can prove you have some semblance of intelligence, neither is possible.
We need to expose those myths for the lies they are, political correctness be damned.
Expose away, it hasn't worked since the inception of mankind, and it won't work now.
We’ve all heard, “This is my religion and it’s true for me.” Objectively, though, the my-religion-is-true-for-me line is false, of course. Jesus can’t be the savior for some, but not others. Muhammad cannot be the prophet of God for one group, but not another. There either is a God, or there isn’t – and there is not. There is no middle ground bet ween truth and falsehood. None should be sought.

Do you do standup ? I bet it's a hoot. "there can be no middle ground between truth and falsehood" Really ? Do you know what an agnostic is ? There are multiple millions of them, and they inhabit that middle ground. Whew, you are a legend in your own mind aren't you ?

 

[shmogie]

I just started reading on this forum, and I've never read such ignorance in my life. Your simply embarrassing. What kind of an idiot are you?

Well, normally in this forum, the idea is to use reason and argument to counter another's points. Ad hominem attacks, like yours,are the tactics usually employed by people who have trouble stringing cogent thoughts together, I hope this isn't your problem. Counter the post with counter argument and facts, or shut up. Name calling is a big no no here, do it again and I will report you. Your Trump tactics may work with the dullards you mix with, but they are no substitute for something resembling an intelligent response.

 

[Augustus]

So you can't conceive of a religious person crediting his Bible with his good ideas? Let him show me what part of his Bible he is referring to, how he got his idea from the Bible,and why other people reading the same words for centuries of not millennia misses that biblical message.

You can find part of his 4th homily on Ecclesiastes on p8 of this article (I've not read the article itself so it's not a recommendation) and his specific reasoning from scripture.

It doesn't matter to me that his views were unorthodox as promoting Christianity is unimportant to me. As you note, ideas evolve over time and gain wider acceptance. His reasoning is the same as the Christians who led the abolitionist movement from the 17th C onwards though.

You see Christians today crediting the Bible with every good idea, including the US Constitution, with which it has virtually nothing in common. Should we have believed the founders that their ideas came from their Bibles had they felt the need to make such a claim for some reason, or should we look at what they are calling their source and inspirations, and make that judgment ourselves?

What Christians say doesn't matter to me as I'm not concerned with religious apologetics, just an evidence based study of history and philosophy of ideas.

Many Christians go too far and many atheists desperately want to believe that their views are entirely rational and owe nothing to subjective culture that developed out of traditions that they dislike.

Nothing more than reason and empathy are needed. How is that like "God did it"? Man did it like he does everything else he does.

An ancient Greek using reason and empathy wouldn't have reached these conclusions. These views are rare in the entirety of human history, while the ability to reason and feel empathy are innate to humans. To believe that they were not dependent on reason/empathy and some aspects of culture is like believing in magic.

You still want to call ideas by a Christian a development of Christianity. You want to say that any idea that comes after a Christian idea is an outgrowth of it dependent on Christianity.

No, I acknowledge that ideas developed by Christians are influenced by Christianity when they explicitly or implicitly rest on theological concepts that are not common in most other societies.

You are currently arguing that a theologian's exegesis of Genesis and Ecclesiastes containing direct scriptural references owes nothing to Christianity. I don't find that a rational position to hold.

If a politician quoted Marx and said he had been influenced by Marx would you go out of your way to try to prove he was mistaken and he hadn't in fact been influenced by Marx at all?

Humanism was centuries in the formation. Some ancient Greek ideas were humanistic. It only emerged as a fully flowered world view in what is called the Enlightenment, a parallel development beside Christianity, one which touched and shaped Christianity as it still does today, but not vice versa.

Some Greek ideas were humanistic, but the Greeks didn't create Humanism because it would have made no sense in their worldview. Amazingly, the missing components are found in Christianity. Anyway, Christianity was massively influenced by Greek thought which is very significant to its evolution and the evolution of European theology and philosophy.

Humanism is basically a mash up of the 2 (liberal Christian ethics and Greek Rationalism) which is completely unsurprising given they are the 2 biggest influences on European thought.

What exactly is your claim about the relationship of humanism to Christianity that is different from mine?

Mainly that I believe Humanism required certain intellectual foundation that are not common to most societies yet were found in European Christian society.

I also don't agree with your progressive teleology by which Humanism must necessarily appear in human society (let alone that of any other intelligent alien civilisation). Seems a bit like Divine Providence to me.

Can we assume that when Christians apply the methods of humanism - reason and empathy to arrive at moral conclusions rather than referring to scripture, that you consider that Christianity?

Not if it has no connection to their theologically grounded worldview.

But reason and empathy only exist in a cultural framework that defines what is reasonable or empathetic. A century ago, reason and empathy led people to support eugenics and favour Communist dictatorship via a different concept of ethics

Can we assume that you believe that humanism could not have arisen without the help of the ideas that Christianity is responsible for, and that without Christianity, there'd be no humanism?

I don't think Christianity was the only possible source, there is no reason why there is only one path to any idea. Humanism required necessary precursors though and the necessary precursors were found in Christianity combined with Greek philosophy.

It required the right cultural conditions, which in this case were provided by Christianity and were not common in most societies, even is some of them were present in some societies.

 

[Augustus]

Exactly what did Christianity do for humanism? Why wouldn't we have it just as we do had Christianity never existed, or our roots been Buddhist instead?

Even 200+ years after its 'invention' Humanism still remains a largely European ideology so it seems there must be something in it.

Buddhism lacks the concept of human exceptionalism and a directional view of history that are found in both Humanism and Christianity. (As far as I know) Buddha reached enlightenment by freeing himself from attachment to a world he knew he couldn't change. Humanism is about changing the world for the better by transcending our human failings.

The most basic of the precursors from Christianity is a concept of a common Humanity. Humanism makes no sense without such a concept, yet it is not found in most societies. If you found an isolated Papuan tribe and tried to explain the concept that we are part of a collective entity and should act in the best interests of the whole it would make no conceptual sense to them. It would be self-evidently false to them (and they would be closer to the truth of the matter)

Equality (all men are created equal) is another concept that has its roots in Genesis creation. It's certainly not scientific, and to most people in history it would again be self-evidently false in their reality. It only seems self-evident to many people today due to their cultural conditioning.

Even the idea that history has a direction is likely influenced by Christianity. The Greek and Romans certainly didn't believe in melioristic progress. Most societies had a cyclical view of history, what has been gained will be lost again.

At one point you implied a permissive rather than causative role for Christianity, but you seem to be advocating more of the latter lately, which is why I am asking you to clarify you claim

Both are relevant.

European thought was dominated by Christianity for 2000 years, you can't really separate the 2. Religion influences society and society influences religion - a 2 way relationship.

One can argue that humanism required the tyranny and oppression the Age of Faith, the Middle Ages, and its church dominated culture as an impetus to arise in reaction, but giving Christianity credit there would be like giving King George III credit for the American revolution.

More likely it was due to increasingly wealthy European society which could support larger numbers of 'unproductive' scholars, and the reinfusion of Greek philosophy from increasing trade and the migration of Greek scholars after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.

Renaissance humanism wasn't a reaction to theocratic oppression.

 

[1robin]

.

I know where the debt came from. We watched it explode in the 21st century. Hippies weren't involved. Men in suits as white shirts were.



You want to blame secularists for America's debt? Was it really that expensive the keep Americasafe from theocracy?

IMO Trump will be a disaster, his only merit is that he wasn't as sadistic and evil as the Clintons are

America narrowly dodged a bullet there. I understand that those sadistic Clintons like to roast puppies alive.

Who knows what Trump is doing with Russia, but at least Hillary's e-mails won't be a problem. And we may have a universe of conflict of interest in Trumps personals holding while president, but that pesky Clinton Foundation won't be seeing any more contributions for a person in office giving a speech.

And Benghazi! OMG Benghazi! I'm still reeling over Clinton giving the enemy the keys to the compound and floor plans of it.

Format your post correctly. I do it for people from time to time, but I do not have an opportunity at the moment. What you posted was incoherent.

 

[1robin]

I believe that the founders intended to keep religion out their new government. I also believe that there is almost no overlap between foundational Christian principles and fundamental America principles. If I didn't, I would have no reason to stand by America. I don't consider Christianity a healthy ideology or one that I would risk anything defending.

That may shock of offend you, but it shouldn't. I reject Christianity's assumptions and values. They're not mine. I simply don't define love as being consistent with building a fiery torture pits full of demons, or requiring people to be tortured on a cross to satisfy a god intolerant of the behavior of its creation. That's a million miles from my idea of love.

And I don't want people that do to have influence over my life.

Stay on one page at a time. We were discussing the nature of Americas founding. I provided dozens and dozens of quotes from the founders and framers that show that the US was built upon a Christian foundation. It is your job to supply evidence and arguments which over turn all those quotes, not to ramble about random subjects.

 

[paarsurrey]

Dislike and distrust of atheists?

The Atheism people have hardly any valid reason to belong to Atheism, they only deride and ridicule other religions, yet people belonging to any religion should not dislike the Atheists, being humans.
Regards

 

[Cobol]

Dislike and distrust of atheists?

The Atheism people have hardly any valid reason to belong to Atheism, they only deride and ridicule other religions, yet people belonging to any religion should not dislike the Atheists, being humans.
Regards

Atheism isn't something you belong to, its a personal relationship and journey with logic and reason.

 

[TheMusicTheory]

Do you do standup ? I bet it's a hoot. "there can be no middle ground between truth and falsehood" Really ? Do you know what an agnostic is ? There are multiple millions of them, and they inhabit that middle ground. Whew, you are a legend in your own mind aren't you ?

You aren't making any sense with this statement.

"there can be no middle ground between truth and falsehood" is a true statement. Something is either true or it is not true. *You* apparently don't know what an agnostic is. An agnostic professes to not *know* if a God is true or not, which means they have not taken a position on the matter. That does not change the fact that he either exists or he doesn't. You can't half-exist. Saying you don't know whether something is true or not is not a middle ground as it pertains to the actual truth of the question. It is a declaration that you have not taken a position on the question and reserve the right to take one or the other answer in the face of further evidence.

 

[paarsurrey]

Atheism isn't something you belong to, its a personal relationship and journey with logic and reason.

View attachment 16688

Then please give a positive argument for Atheism without reference to other religions.
Regards