Religion and Politics
- Thread starter kochman
- Start date
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Let me check with James Dobson, he usually has a list of suspects.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Ah...dont confuse atheism with not being pious enough for Dr. D. They arent quite the same thing.
Odd, I dont see them doing that at all.
School prayer?
Abortion bans?
Gay marriage bans?
10 Commandments in public places?
Saying that America is based on Christian principles?
Opposing the building of Mosques in legitimate places?
Dr. D wasn't even sure if Fred Thompson was a Christian, so perhaps you should direct your confusion counseling at the good doctor.Ah...dont confuse atheism with not being pious enough for Dr. D. They arent quite the same thing.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Let's take the arguments for Pro-Life, they are often religion based.Odd, I dont see them doing that at all.
Um, we are. Judeo-Christian principles were clearly at the founding of this nation, like it or not.
Uh, yeah... It's about 20-30% of people who think building a Mosque at 9/11 is a good idea... but of the other overwhelming majority who oppose it, a VERY small percentage uses Christianity or Judaism as the reason, if any.
Yeah, but the Civil War cured us of a bit of that.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Or reasserted it, if you pay attention to the words of Abe Lincoln.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Treaty of Tripoli, signed by the founders, expressly deny any Judeo-Christian heritage.
In fact, there is a better argument that we are based on a Anglo-Roman heritage rather then a rather amorphous Judeo-Christian heritage concept that fails quite abysmally when applied to any sort of government or legal institution.Treaty of Tripoli said:
I didn't realize an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory is 9/11.
I don't think the Emancipation Proclamation was a reassertion of the principle I was referencing.
You cannot make a historic claim that America was founded on Christian values. Not without rejecting history.
And so what? It's still an anti-American view pushed by Christian radicals.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Anglo-Roman is also HEAVILY influenced by Judeo-Christian, first of all... see my comments to Cutlass below for further detail about how we were founded J-C.
Come on Adijica... this is silly. They were offered FREE land further uptown, and rejected it. It's very close to the WTC site, and insensitive.
The majority of people in the USA, even to this day, are Christian. During the founding, they were OVERWHELMINGLY Christian. Just because the government didn't push the religion, on a bunch of varying denominations Christians who'd often faced persecution in their old country based on these differences, doesn't take away from the fact that most were clearly Christian.
No, it isn't. It's very American people asking that Islamic cleric to show a little sensitivity.
galdre
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,859
You can only consider it insensitive if you think that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11
yes, and a lot of them were slave owners. We've moved on
The fact that the people were Christian doesn't even resemble beginning to make the case that the country was founded on Christian principles. It isn't even relevant to the discussion.
And if you think people are falsely characterizing you as being far right, this post explains why. There was literally nothing conceivably wrong with the site. The entire opposition to the site was radicals refusing to allow Americans their Constitutional rights. That and the invention of an emotional issue to stir up voters for the election.
I think it was insensitive to locate the community center so far away from ground zero. It should have been located on ground zero to replace the previous worship that was going on in the buildings while they were standing.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not all pro-life arguments are religious based, and in fact, the vast majority of them arent. Federal funding for it for example, which is the primary argument, simply isnt religious based at all, but rather argues is it right to use taxpayer money for a procedure that a significant majority of our populace doesnt agree with?
Which isnt without controversy since there were two actual copies of the treaty itself, and in any case, was only legal for the very short period of time until that same treaty was broken.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Not really. The Roman legal system of a codified set of laws emerged when they were neither Christian nor Jewish, and drew upon influences from other 'pagan' nations.
The English common law system of precedents, which we also use, emerged from Germanic common law system, which, coincedentaly, was not Christian!
That they are viewed as being 'Judeo-Christian' is simply a refusal to look at the sources of where the system came from, instead looking at who propogated them while tacking on a 'Judeo' to claim they came from the Bible. Even Eclessiastical Law was almost exclusively based on existing Roman law, with the entire hierarchial structure mirroring the Roman administrative system quite well.
Ever read in high school A Rasin in the Sun? If not allow me to briefly summarize it: You have no freedom if a majority can say "We really don't want you here: leave". That they were offered additional land elsewhere has no bearing on the fact a majority attempted to violate their constitutional rights.
I would assume the strip club closer to the Towers is more insensitive then a community center located two blocks away and obscured by other buildings.
You use Christian very loosely. Jefferson, like many of the founding fathers, were either Diest or very close to that. When someone rewrites the Bible, taking out all refrences to divinity or miracles, are they still really a Christian?
How about the amorphous and ill-defined 'american people' show a little respect to the Constitution of the United States of America?
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Well, I guess the overwhelming majority of Americans are just insensitive jerks.
The attacks were inspired by Islam. This doesn't mean Americans hold all Muslims responsible.
Um, not from Christianity.
Yes, it is... because culture, which led to the creation of the nation, is important.
Denying history doesn't invalidate it.
No, you know, you are clearly far left, and here you display it again. I am in line with 70% of Americans... which means, all but 30%, which are on the far end of the spectrum. This is pretty obvious.
Very few people oppose the site based on Constitutional reasons, and those who do, well, they would be inherently wrong. Legally, the site is fine. Realistically, it is very insensitive and unnecessary.
The thugs that drafted the Constitution made it clear off the bat that it was drafted to a form a more perfect UNION. The words God, corporation, apple pie, baseball, or mom do not even appear. The document should be considered very offensive to most real Americans.
Similar threads
