My new political party. - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
November 17th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Like most politicised issues it seems the vast majority of common folk are in agreement and share some common sense views. And as usual it is a small radical handful on either end of the issue making it go caddiewhompus because they can't compromise or they just enjoy the spotlight too much.
November 17th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Doody

Gotta disagree here.

Religous reference such as "in God we trust" or "under God". I'd say are ok because it merely mentions God and not the establishment of Religon.
God is simply an entity and not in itself a actually religous following. The 9th circuit Court disagreed with me here.

But putting the 10-commendments on public building is unconstitutional because its endorses a Judeo-Christian religous philosophy over others. What happens if you are a Buddhist, Hindu, or other non Judeo/Muslim/Christian? Its not a question of being 'converted' to Christianity just because the 10 commandments are there, but rather that the fact that government chooses one religon over another.

The Treaty of Tripoli, which was approved by President John Adams and unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797, declares that "the government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion".
November 18th, 2005  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
I knew we'd disagree. You and I are very different animals. So when you and I agree on things like the American Party's hyprocritical view on the value of life, it says something.

I am in no mood for a debate over religion. My mind is on my 5000 word paper due on tuesday. So I will leave the matter alone...I pick my battles wisely

Doody
--
Boots
November 18th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Quote:
But putting the 10-commendments on public building is unconstitutional because its endorses a Judeo-Christian religous philosophy over others. What happens if you are a Buddhist, Hindu, or other non Judeo/Muslim/Christian? Its not a question of being 'converted' to Christianity just because the 10 commandments are there, but rather that the fact that government chooses one religon over another.

I see your point marsh but did the founding fathers really belive we needed to strip the ten commandments off court houses, in god we trust off of our money and get rid of the word christmas. Im not saying there needs to be a daily prayer session in congress but come-on enough is enough. This is a christian nation founded on christian beleifes ran by christian men.
November 18th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Rabs

Well thats the $1 Million dollar question. The answer is nobody knows. Its true the Founding Fathers were Christian but I really cannot say if the country was founded on Christian beliefs. If it was then which version of Christianity? Catholic? Protestant, Baptist, Quaker, Unitariarian, etc? If we go down that road not only do we have to figure out if the Founding fathers meant Christian principals, but also which version of Christianity. You talk about your constitutional nightmare!

My feeling is this, is this day and age its probably best to keep the two things completely seperate, even if the Founding Fathers did have Christianity in mind. Remember the Founding Fathers are enlighted as they are; were not always right. You can also say that what went on in 1789 might no longer work in 2005.

Because not acknolwleding any Religon (like most countries) is better for the country as a whole. Otherwise you start mixing Christianity in and somebody who isnt a Christian or disagrees with a specific intrepretation of Christianity is bound to get ticked off. This way at least nobody feels left out as Seperation of Church and State voids the problem completly.

Doody

You are a wiser man than I
BTW, slightly personal question if you dont mind, is that undergrad, grad, phd etc you're doing?
November 18th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Quote:
Christianity in and somebody who isnt a Christian or disagrees with a specific intrepretation of Christianity is bound to get ticked off.
Tough oats. 85 percent of this nation is christian. Im not saying we have church and state, just not this war agaisnt christanity in a christian nation. I mean for the love of god, lets at least call it christmas vacation. 85% perecent of this country probally think Dr. martin luther king jr day is justfied. Then theres some os us that are a little ticked about it, does that mean it should be taken off the calender, heck no. I just dont think theres anything wrong with wearing a cross to school, or have the ten commandments on a court house lawn.

And im pretty sure they did know, or they wouldnt have stopped constitutional meetings to have prayer sessions.

I have a feeling its just better to say we agree to disagree.
November 18th, 2005  
Grimmy
 
The seperation of Church and State is a moot point.

The issue is, for me at least, is a question of honoring an oath.

The Constitution clearly states protection of religious expression in the 1st Amendment.

Also the "10 commandments..what about hindus or buddists.." stuff is a red herring.

Religious expression means religious expression. If there's folks of other faiths in the area and they want their thing up too, then fine.

The "in God we trust" can also be read, "In THIS God we trust" meaning the all mighty dollar. I give a hoot, personaly, if its there or not. What I do care about is folks purposfully misquoting the Constitution to attack the Constitution and to attack any part or piece of USA cultural identity that they can lay their corrupt legalistic hands on.
November 18th, 2005  
behemoth79
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Rabs

Well thats the $1 Million dollar question. The answer is nobody knows. Its true the Founding Fathers were Christian but I really cannot say if the country was founded on Christian beliefs. If it was then which version of Christianity? Catholic? Protestant, Baptist, Quaker, Unitariarian, etc? If we go down that road not only do we have to figure out if the Founding fathers meant Christian principals, but also which version of Christianity. You talk about your constitutional nightmare!

My feeling is this, is this day and age its probably best to keep the two things completely seperate, even if the Founding Fathers did have Christianity in mind. Remember the Founding Fathers are enlighted as they are; were not always right. You can also say that what went on in 1789 might no longer work in 2005.

Because not acknolwleding any Religon (like most countries) is better for the country as a whole. Otherwise you start mixing Christianity in and somebody who isnt a Christian or disagrees with a specific intrepretation of Christianity is bound to get ticked off. This way at least nobody feels left out as Seperation of Church and State voids the problem completly.

Doody

You are a wiser man than I
BTW, slightly personal question if you dont mind, is that undergrad, grad, phd etc you're doing?
looks like i came upon this thread at an interesting time. one thing that stuck out in the proposals was the issue of gun control. i believe that americans should be able to carry guns for protection. automatic rifles are are for offensive use. they should not be around. but handguns, and hunting rifles are fine with me. i do think they should be registered however. it helps track down suspects in criminal cases. i dont think its too bad to declare that you have a gun.

as for the religious thing, im with Doody. I dont think having, in God we trust, or the ten commandments in public places is a showcase of a government established religion. if someone can explain to me how any of that is an establishment of religion, i would love to know. Even if the government comes out and publicly states that it favors christianity over the rest, it is still not an establishment of religion. does the first amendment not include those who work for the government? are they not allowed to express their views? last time i checked, the president of the united states was still a citizen and protected under the same constitution. so if all of congress comes out and in unison declares, "we are all christian" is that not an expression of their first amendment right to choose their own religion? At no point has any act of the government forced someone to be of a certain religion.

and regarding the whole "times have changed. get with the program" argument:
yes the times have changed. but heres a question for you. have they changed for the better? i think not. before, children were raised.... i was going to continue on but it just hit me that i can stop right there. before, children were raised. the more i look around, the more i see families where children come home from school to frozen leftovers and microwavable soups. they come home to nannies and babysitters. where are the parents? at work. work work work work work. thats all we do nowadays. why, because things we have become so materialistic that the only way we can get by and survive with our 90 inch plasma screens and expensive sports cars that we cant possible live without is to have both "parents" work all day. I put parents in quotes because i wonder why they are called "parents" when they no longer raise their children. I look back at the 1950s many times and wonder what really happened to change all that. The idea of "family" has deteriorated.

continuing with the changing or times, why have the roles of good and evil changed? why are police officers considered the bad guys? why is it that children root for the gangs, the burglers, the criminals, instead of the police and the law. i know why. because of the idea of, "if it feels good, do it." this idea ties in to the religious argument. the idea of "do what you want" and "you are your own god," instead of "thats not the right thing to do," or the golden rule. "do to others what you would have them do to you." remember the golden rule people? i bet you had forgotten it. our society today doesnt want you to remember it. it wants you to be jealous, to hate, to despise, to want what others have. IT WANTS YOU TO DROWN IN YOUR OWN POOL OF HATE.

regarding the issue of the death penalty. why are we even discussing it? the problem here isnt whether the death penalty is good or bad, its "Why are people killing other people?" Can you really hate someone so much as to end their life? can you really have that black of a heart? with parents who raise you properly, you cant. if your parents show you nothing but love, how can you hate? you cant.

Now lets say we introduce morality into law. why not make a law preventing both parents from working full time jobs? one must stay home and raise the child to be a good, law-abiding, citizen when he/she grows up. with constant parental care and show of love and support, would that not all but elimate gangs? would that not end murder? rape? hate? I would like to think it would. but no, lets sacrafice our children and the future of our world so we can have that 8 bedroom mansion, 5 cars, and that yacht.

if you havnt caught the subliminal point ive been trying to make, here it is in black and white. Basic religious fundamentals will strengthen our society, our country, and our world. So lets go back to the times when people actually cared about eachother, and not this hell we call our society.

Now i know i got a bit carried away here, but let me ask you something. Have i forced any religion on you? have i infringed on your right to chose a religion? If you think i have, then i am sorry, not for my words, but i am sorry that, that you are so.... for lack of better word, stupid.
November 19th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Marsh, the intent of the founding fathers is very very clear as they were educated men and prolific writers among other things. In their private and public writings outside of official documents they make very clear reference to the US being founded and guided by Christian principles from the Bible. Get ahold of some of the collections of their writing and have a gander, start with the architect of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson. Guaranteed to be an eye opener bruv.
November 23rd, 2005  
gladius
 
The West needs Christianity to survive.

I'm saying this simply for logical reasons. NOT religious reasons.

Secularism has replaced Christianity in most of the West, especially Europe. The result is a society based on "individual values" as opposed to "family values" as you had with Christianity. The outcome of all this is the birth rates have fallen. Less attention to family lifestyle, more to the individual lifestyle therby producing an enviroment not conductive to raising families.

An average birth rate of 2.1 children is nescasery for continued population growth. The decline for Europe has been drastic with a birth rate of 1.4 children. The US is about has 2.0 Birth rate still less than what is needed, but comparatively higher than Europe. This can probably be reflected also in Church attendance which Europe only averages about 10% to the US about 50%, reflecting the effect of Christianity in society has in proportion to the birth rates.

The result is not only a declining economy but an immigrant take over as can now be exemplified in Europe.

The second bad side effect is the those seeking some religious outlet in Europe have no where to turn to save Islam. Since Chritianity over there has been rendered virtually impotent. This effect only exaserbates the problem already there of native Europeans converting, and also of not being able to convert some immigrants therby making it easier for those coverted to assimilate, and adopt more Western values. Converting at least some of them may stem the problem a little, any little bit helps, but alas there is nothing in Europe in place right now to do this.

Here is a link to add more info. http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1056046/posts

I do not advocate a state run church. But I do believe the goverment does need to acknowledge Christainity as the foundation of Western Civilzation. If the West goes so does democracy from the globe. I think moves to completely erase all identity of Christianity from our daily life will slowly doom us.

--------------

As for the American party I do not entirely agree with them, they are too isolationist which is detrimental to preserving democracy. I like some of their points, but most of it I don't like, so I'll pass on this one.