Re: House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

by ziggy Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:24 pm

Cato wrote:You own words condemn you, Ziggy. Evanglism is a basic part of Christainity as is confessing that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

That is your opinion. The best kind of evangelism is demonstrated in how we live, not in what we preach. So unless you find the way I live to be un-Christian, your effort to condemn me as anti-Christian is but hogwash.

Speaking for myself, I won't deny Jesus Christ, just so you or anyone else on this board or in this nation for that matter feels confortable.

As far as I know, no one is asking you to.

As far as scaring the hell out of people, people do that to themselves, by guilt usually.

Sometimes we do, yes.

But I have seen people- neighbors and relatives- who lead good and moral lives preached to by so-called Christian preachers whose obvious only goal is to scare the people into a spiritual frenzy. Some of them fall prey to these self-obsessed charlatans, and some don't.

I know the scriptures well enough and I have yet to find where they do anything other than point out the consequences for one's choices.

There seems to be a lot of disagreement among even Bible reading Christians as to the consequences of this and of that choice. And so we have many sects or denominations of Christianity- some even with their own versions of the Bible. You obviously think you are a good Christian, and I believe I am a good Christian. But I am willing to posit that we can both be good Christians without the need to agree on age-old theological questions to be so.

However, choices is a part of living as is facing the consequences for those choices.

You keep saying that as though it were some strange truth revealed only to you. But every child who has eaten something or more of something than his or her body can tolerate without giving a tummy ache knows that our choices, our actions, have consequences.

by Cato Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:30 pm

ziggy wrote:
That is your opinion. The best kind of evangelism is demonstrated in how we live, not in what we preach. So unless you find the way I live to be un-Christian, your effort to condemn me as anti-Christian is but hogwash.

Do You believe, have you repented of your past sins, do you confess that Jesus Crhist is the Son of God and do it before all mankind, were you bptaized for the rmeission of sins, or you living faithly unto death or are this just pretty words found in the bible only to be ignored?

ziggy wrote: As far as I know, no one is asking you to.

When you support silencing anyone who speaks about religion, you do just that, foce them to deny what the believe.

ziggy wrote: Sometimes we do, yes.

But I have seen people- neighbors and relatives- who lead good and moral lives preached to by so-called Christian preachers whose obvious only goal is to scare the people into a spiritual frenzy. Some of them fall prey to these self-obsessed charlatans, and some don't.

Just being good doesn't make one a christian. There is far more than being a morally good person. That does however bring me to a question, how do you know what their goal was?

ziggy wrote: There seems to be a lot of disagreement among even Bible reading Christians as to the consequences of this and of that choice. And so we have many sects or denominations of Christianity- some even with their own versions of the Bible. You obviously think you are a good Christian, and I believe I am a good Christian. But I am willing to posit that we can both be good Christians without the need to agree on age-old theological questions to be so.

There is alot of dishonesty out there. There are many who make the bible say what they want it to say. The fact is that the bible says what it says and it says the samething to everyone. Now, whether or not the accept it or choose to be dishonest is another question.

No, we cannot disagree on what the bible says and both still be christains. Theat is both illogical and just plain dishonest. Its like saying that I can study forestry and be a brain surgeon, while you can study brain surgery and be a brain surgeon.

ziggy wrote: You keep saying that as though it were some strange truth revealed only to you. But every child who has eaten something or more of something than his or her body can tolerate without giving a tummy ache knows that our choices, our actions, have consequences.

The catch is many in fact most people don't accept this very simple fact, that were the result of the choices we make. I point ot hte bank bailout as a prime example.

by Aaron Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:00 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:How do you tame them then? I mean, you've ballyhooed about corporations for years so you must have some idea of how you think they should work.

Without going into all of your "We must be honest enough to do this..." double speak, how about assuming we're willing to recognize and/or go along with whatever it is we need to recognize and/or go along with and tell us what you think we should do.

Ah, so telling- your bemoaning of the need to be honest.

What we should do is let real people, not the artificial entities we call corporations- control the government. But the past several decades have seen corporations increasingly being the head turners of government, and which has accelerated in the past 30 years or so, and snowballed under Bush II and now Obama.

One place to start might be with public financing of election campaigns for candidates who are willing to forego corporate and other private campaign cash other than in set small, nominal amounts.

Seems to me my question was about corporations, not the government. Why can't you answer the question considering you’re the one that’s been complaining about them for ever and 2 days?

I’ll re-post so you don’t have to scroll up. I’ll even bold the pertinent part of the question.

Aaron wrote:How do you tame them then? I mean, you've ballyhooed about corporations for years so you must have some idea of how you think they should work.

Without going into all of your "We must be honest enough to do this..." double speak, how about assuming we're willing to recognize and/or go along with whatever it is we need to recognize and/or go along with and tell us what you think we should do.

And answer assuming corporations aren't, as you say, running the government, and tell me how you tame the corporations you hate so much.

by ziggy Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:47 pm

I do not have a Q & A litmus test for your Christianisty, Cato. But I will indulge you.

Cato wrote:Do You believe,

Yes.

have you repented of your past sins,

Yes.

do you confess that Jesus Crhist is the Son of God and do it before all mankind,

I confess before all mankind that all of us- whether now living or in the past- we are all the sons or daughters of God.

were you bptaized for the rmeission of sins,

I don't know. I may have been as a child. I don't consider it necessary as a part of being a Christian.

or you living faithly unto death or are this just pretty words found in the bible only to be ignored?

I try to live faithfully.

When you support silencing anyone who speaks about religion, you do just that, foce them to deny what the believe.

I am not for silencing anyone speaking about religion unless they seek to use the government as their pulpit. And if you support using government for that purpose, then I disagree with you. And the Constitution and the Founders, specifically Madison and Jefferson, agreed with me.

Just being good doesn't make one a christian. There is far more than being a morally good person.

So can one be a Christian without being a morally good person? Some people talk like they can be.

That does however bring me to a question, how do you know what their goal was?

By their demanding words, their demanding voice tone, their "either or" with no room for dissent preachings. Many of them sound more like a politician giving a stump speech wanting you to vote for them than anything I would consider ministerial.

There is alot of dishonesty out there. There are many who make the bible say what they want it to say. The fact is that the bible says what it says and it says the samething to everyone.

Obviously that is not the case- or there would not be so many divergent sects and denominations all claiming to have the right spin on what the Bible means.

Now, whether or not the accept it or choose to be dishonest is another question. No, we cannot disagree on what the bible says and both still be christains. Theat is both illogical and just plain dishonest.

So there is no room for honest differences of opinion about what the Bible means?

Its like saying that I can study forestry and be a brain surgeon, while you can study brain surgery and be a brain surgeon.

So everyone who studies the Bible gets the same meanings from it all?

The catch is many in fact most people don't accept this very simple fact, that were the result of the choices we make.

I disagree. I think most of them understand, they just disagree with you about the results of their choices.

I point ot hte bank bailout as a prime example.

Now you've lost me there- unless you agree with me that America is so steeped in corporate socialism that letting a few top heavy corporations fail would be akin to letting the government fail. No one was holding a gun to the heads of Congress to approve the bailouts. Or were they?

by SamCogar Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:36 am

AH SO, a testimony of another "fair weather" Christian.

.

by Aaron Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:13 am

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:How do you tame them then? I mean, you've ballyhooed about corporations for years so you must have some idea of how you think they should work.

Without going into all of your "We must be honest enough to do this..." double speak, how about assuming we're willing to recognize and/or go along with whatever it is we need to recognize and/or go along with and tell us what you think we should do.

Ah, so telling- your bemoaning of the need to be honest.

What we should do is let real people, not the artificial entities we call corporations- control the government. But the past several decades have seen corporations increasingly being the head turners of government, and which has accelerated in the past 30 years or so, and snowballed under Bush II and now Obama.

One place to start might be with public financing of election campaigns for candidates who are willing to forego corporate and other private campaign cash other than in set small, nominal amounts.

Seems to me my question was about corporations, not the government. Why can't you answer the question considering you’re the one that’s been complaining about them for ever and 2 days?

I’ll re-post so you don’t have to scroll up. I’ll even bold the pertinent part of the question.

Aaron wrote:How do you tame them then? I mean, you've ballyhooed about corporations for years so you must have some idea of how you think they should work.

Without going into all of your "We must be honest enough to do this..." double speak, how about assuming we're willing to recognize and/or go along with whatever it is we need to recognize and/or go along with and tell us what you think we should do.

And answer assuming corporations aren't, as you say, running the government, and tell me how you tame the corporations you hate so much.

House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill - Page 4 052-M-186%20Nickel%20Cricket

by Cato Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:02 am

ziggy wrote:I do not have a Q & A litmus test for your Christianisty, Cato. But I will indulge you.

I guess that's your choice as to what to believe. I just went through what was found in the New Testament. If you want to call it a litmus test I guess you can.

ziggy wrote:I am not for silencing anyone speaking about religion unless they seek to use the government as their pulpit. And if you support using government for that purpose, then I disagree with you. And the Constitution and the Founders, specifically Madison and Jefferson, agreed with me.

It is dependent on what you call using the government as a pulpit. The actual fact is, the first amendment states quite clearly that CONGRESS shall make no LAW establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. When the courts prohibit a student from even invoking the name of God in a speach or from voluntary prayer they have in effect prohibited the free exercise of religion, they have made secular humanism the national religion, and they have interfered with free speach. Thus, I doubt very seriously Madison or Jefferson would agree, with you.

ziggy wrote:So can one be a Christian without being a morally good person? Some people talk like they can be.

Funny, and a typical childish answer.

ziggy wrote:By their demanding words, their demanding voice tone, their "either or" with no room for dissent preachings. Many of them sound more like a politician giving a stump speech wanting you to vote for them than anything I would consider ministerial.

That may make them idiots and several other things, but it doesn't make what they do unconstitutional. By the way, did anyone hold a gun to you relatives head, could they not just walk away? Were they forced to obey what was being said?

ziggy wrote:Obviously that is not the case- or there would not be so many divergent sects and denominations all claiming to have the right spin on what the Bible means.

That's right there wouldn't be so many denominations. However, like you people are dishonest in their logic and try to make the bible say what they want it to say. Paul addressed this very issue at the chruch in Corinth. Look at 1 Corinthians chapter 1.

ziggy wrote:So there is no room for honest differences of opinion about what the Bible means?

In matters of doctrine, no there is no room for disagreement. Only two options apply here. It either means what it says, or it is worthless. We can't pick and choose what we want to believe and what we don't.

ziggy wrote:So everyone who studies the Bible gets the same meanings from it all?

If they are honest, then the answer is yes.

ziggy wrote:I disagree. I think most of them understand, they just disagree with you about the results of their choices.

Fancy words Ziggy, but the fact remains we are the result of our choices. We reap the rewards of good choices and suffer the consequences of bad ones. That's a fact of life.

ziggy wrote:Now you've lost me there- unless you agree with me that America is so steeped in corporate socialism that letting a few top heavy corporations fail would be akin to letting the government fail. No one was holding a gun to the heads of Congress to approve the bailouts. Or were they?

The major banks screwed up, plain and simple as did congress over the past years in requiring banks loan to people who were unfit to loan to. Banks saw this as an oppertunity to make money and found a way to divest themselves of the liability. The whole system fell and instead of both congress and the banks accepting thier responsibility they "covered thier butts" at the tax payers expense.

If this had been done honestly, all the parties involved, both with the banks and in congress would have been held accountible and suffered the consequences.

by Aaron Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:07 pm

Aaron wrote:
Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:How do you tame them then? I mean, you've ballyhooed about corporations for years so you must have some idea of how you think they should work.

Without going into all of your "We must be honest enough to do this..." double speak, how about assuming we're willing to recognize and/or go along with whatever it is we need to recognize and/or go along with and tell us what you think we should do.

Ah, so telling- your bemoaning of the need to be honest.

What we should do is let real people, not the artificial entities we call corporations- control the government. But the past several decades have seen corporations increasingly being the head turners of government, and which has accelerated in the past 30 years or so, and snowballed under Bush II and now Obama.

One place to start might be with public financing of election campaigns for candidates who are willing to forego corporate and other private campaign cash other than in set small, nominal amounts.

Seems to me my question was about corporations, not the government. Why can't you answer the question considering you’re the one that’s been complaining about them for ever and 2 days?

I’ll re-post so you don’t have to scroll up. I’ll even bold the pertinent part of the question.

Aaron wrote:How do you tame them then? I mean, you've ballyhooed about corporations for years so you must have some idea of how you think they should work.

Without going into all of your "We must be honest enough to do this..." double speak, how about assuming we're willing to recognize and/or go along with whatever it is we need to recognize and/or go along with and tell us what you think we should do.

And answer assuming corporations aren't, as you say, running the government, and tell me how you tame the corporations you hate so much.

I guess we know how to shut Ziggy up. Force him to put up.

by ziggy Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:10 pm

Aaron wrote:And answer assuming corporations aren't, as you say, running the government, and tell me how you tame the corporations you hate so much.

I will not make such an assumption. Again, we have to be honest enough to admit to the reality that corporations are an invention of government and have now taken over the government in too many matters. We will not tame either the government or the corporations until that reality is understood.

by ziggy Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:57 pm

Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:I do not have a Q & A litmus test for your Christianisty, Cato. But I will indulge you.

I guess that's your choice as to what to believe. I just went through what was found in the New Testament. If you want to call it a litmus test I guess you can.

And every Christian denomination says the same thing- that they get their doctrines from the Bible. Can they all be correct?

ziggy wrote:I am not for silencing anyone speaking about religion unless they seek to use the government as their pulpit. And if you support using government for that purpose, then I disagree with you. And the Constitution and the Founders, specifically Madison and Jefferson, agreed with me.

It is dependent on what you call using the government as a pulpit. The actual fact is, the first amendment states quite clearly that CONGRESS shall make no LAW establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. When the courts prohibit a student from even invoking the name of God in a speach or from voluntary prayer they have in effect prohibited the free exercise of religion, they have made secular humanism the national religion, and they have interfered with free speach.

Again, you make the mistake of equating religious neutrality with the "religion"of secular humanism. Why do you consider that religious neutrality in government equates to "secular humanism" rather than to no religion at all in government?

You keep talking about "voluntary prayer". It is not "voluntary prayer" when a teacher or other school authority says that now is the time we pray and recognizes someone or other to say a prayer.

Thus, I doubt very seriously Madison or Jefferson would agree, with you.

Madison was an even stronger advocate than Jefferson for absolute separation of church and government- and including at state and local levels.

ziggy wrote:So can one be a Christian without being a morally good person? Some people talk like they can be.

Funny, and a typical childish answer.

What is funny about it? What is childish about it? Why can't you offer an honest answer as to can a person be a Christian without being a morally good person? Or is the answer to that too painful for you to contemplate?

ziggy wrote:By their demanding words, their demanding voice tone, their "either or" with no room for dissent preachings. Many of them sound more like a politician giving a stump speech wanting you to vote for them than anything I would consider ministerial.

That may make them idiots and several other things, but it doesn't make what they do unconstitutional.

I didn't say it was unconstitutional. Even idiots have constitutional rights. I said that their obvious goal was to scare the hell out of people who already have a good relationship with neighbors and their God.

By the way, did anyone hold a gun to you relatives head, could they not just walk away? Were they forced to obey what was being said?

I have known teenage children who were spanked by their parents for "walking away", or for refusing to assent to what was being said. I have known adults who were shunned by their family members simply because they dared to say they disagreed with parts of what the preacher said Sunday morning.

I have known married couples whom one spouse would refuse to sleep with the other spouse unless / until he or she got "right with the Lord". Is "salvation" that is in commanded under penalty of banishment from the marital bed any salvation at all?

Thirty some years ago I use to know a fellow who onwned a large supermarket near Beckley. He would not hire anyone to work at his store who didn't profess to be a "born again Christian". Ironically, he went broke after his "born again Christian" bookkeeper embezzled a half million dollars or so from him over about 5 years.

Or relationship with our God(s) should could from the conscience within us, not from the prods and admonitions of our friends and relatives and employers.

ziggy wrote:Obviously that is not the case- or there would not be so many divergent sects and denominations all claiming to have the right spin on what the Bible means.

That's right there wouldn't be so many denominations. However, like you people are dishonest in their logic and try to make the bible say what they want it to say. Paul addressed this very issue at the chruch in Corinth. Look at 1 Corinthians chapter 1.

So differences of opinion about theological matters mean that one party or the other is being "dishonest in their logic"? How do we know that you aren't making the Bible say what you want it to say, and being just as "dishonest in your logic" as you accuse me of being?

ziggy wrote:So there is no room for honest differences of opinion about what the Bible means?

In matters of doctrine, no there is no room for disagreement. Only two options apply here. It either means what it says, or it is worthless. We can't pick and choose what we want to believe and what we don't.

Then if not, what is religious freedom about? Apparently you would have it be about accepting only Cato's interpretation of what the Bible means.

ziggy wrote:So everyone who studies the Bible gets the same meanings from it all?

If they are honest, then the answer is yes.

Sp how do we know who is being honest? Cato, or the skeptics of Cato's doctrine?

ziggy wrote:I disagree. I think most of them understand, they just disagree with you about the results of their choices.

Fancy words Ziggy, but the fact remains we are the result of our choices.

What's "fancy" about them?

We reap the rewards of good choices and suffer the consequences of bad ones. That's a fact of life.

Of course it is. As as I said earlier, almost every child learns that rather early in life unless he or she is hopelessly mentally impared. One does not have to accept this or that religious doctrine to understand that out actions have consequences.

ziggy wrote:Now you've lost me there- unless you agree with me that America is so steeped in corporate socialism that letting a few top heavy corporations fail would be akin to letting the government fail. No one was holding a gun to the heads of Congress to approve the bailouts. Or were they?

The major banks screwed up, plain and simple as did congress over the past years in requiring banks loan to people who were unfit to loan to. Banks saw this as an oppertunity to make money and found a way to divest themselves of the liability. The whole system fell and instead of both congress and the banks accepting thier responsibility they "covered thier butts" at the tax payers expense.

If this had been done honestly, all the parties involved, both with the banks and in congress would have been held accountible and suffered the consequences.

But who is to hold them accountable? The banks and the other financial houses control Congress- because they own the political souls of congress. The election campaign finance laws assure that. So why would we expect Congress to be held accountable by anyone?

by ziggy Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:59 pm

SamCogar wrote:AH SO, a testimony of another "fair weather" Christian.

So what kind of a Christrian are you, Sam?

by Aaron Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:11 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:And answer assuming corporations aren't, as you say, running the government, and tell me how you tame the corporations you hate so much.

I will not make such an assumption. Again, we have to be honest enough to admit to the reality that corporations are an invention of government and have now taken over the government in too many matters. We will not tame either the government or the corporations until that reality is understood.

That's a cop out for a blow hard coward. Plain and simple.

PUorSU time chicken little.

by ziggy Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:40 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:And answer assuming corporations aren't, as you say, running the government, and tell me how you tame the corporations you hate so much.

I will not make such an assumption. Again, we have to be honest enough to admit to the reality that corporations are an invention of government and have now taken over the government in too many matters. We will not tame either the government or the corporations until that reality is understood.

That's a cop out for a blow hard coward. Plain and simple.

PUorSU time chicken little.

So do you deny that corporations are created by governments? Do you deny that corporations often do become the controlers of government?

by Aaron Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:16 am

I believe the question is to you chicken little. Answer up or show yourself for the blowhard coward you are.

by Cato Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:21 am

ziggy wrote: And every Christian denomination says the same thing- that they get their doctrines from the Bible. Can they all be correct?

Nope they can't. In Acts 17 the Bearens were considered more noble because they searched the scriptures to see if what was said was so or not. The New Testament is the standard and in matters religious, to be correct, they have to comply with the New Testament.

It is man who can be very dishonest in using the scriptures. Some take just one verse and make a doctrine out of it, without ever consdiering what else is written ont he subject. Others pick and choose wha tthey want for doctrine. Still others still say they get new revelation from God. All of those are dishonest.

All one has to do is pick the book up and honestly read it, without prejustice and do what it says. In matters of doctrine it is clear and easily understood.

ziggy wrote:

Again, you make the mistake of equating religious neutrality with the "religion"of secular humanism. Why do you consider that religious neutrality in government equates to "secular humanism" rather than to no religion at all in government?

Secular humanism is the default when it comes to religion, thus I don't err. People think that if you take God out of the picture, i.e. secular humanism, that we come neutral in religious matters. In reality the only thing that happens is that God is replaced with man. A simple way of looking at this is that you replace the God I believe in with the god you choose to believe in. That certainly isn't neutrality.

ziggy wrote:You keep talking about "voluntary prayer". It is not "voluntary prayer" when a teacher or other school authority says that now is the time we pray and recognizes someone or other to say a prayer.

Wrong. Prayer become involuntary when one is forced to pray. When is not forced then it is voluntary. If a school chooses a time when one can pray if they so desire, then no no right has been denied.

ziggy wrote:Madison was an even stronger advocate than Jefferson for absolute separation of church and government- and including at state and local levels.

There you go using seperation of chruch and government again. It is along ways from taxing people to support the church and denying one the right to pray or invoke the name of God what they so choose.

ziggy wrote:

What is funny about it? What is childish about it? Why can't you offer an honest answer as to can a person be a Christian without being a morally good person? Or is the answer to that too painful for you to contemplate?

I did offer you an honest answer and the best you could dio is come back with a childish reply. As I pointed out earlier one has to live faithfully until death. That means that one has to be a morally sound person. However, being just morally good isn't enough. There are things like obedience, and love that are also required.

ziggy wrote:

I didn't say it was unconstitutional. Even idiots have constitutional rights. I said that their obvious goal was to scare the hell out of people who already have a good relationship with neighbors and their God.

I have known teenage children who were spanked by their parents for "walking away", or for refusing to assent to what was being said. I have known adults who were shunned by their family members simply because they dared to say they disagreed with parts of what the preacher said Sunday morning.

I have known married couples whom one spouse would refuse to sleep with the other spouse unless / until he or she got "right with the Lord". Is "salvation" that is in commanded under penalty of banishment from the marital bed any salvation at all?

Thirty some years ago I use to know a fellow who onwned a large supermarket near Beckley. He would not hire anyone to work at his store who didn't profess to be a "born again Christian". Ironically, he went broke after his "born again Christian" bookkeeper embezzled a half million dollars or so from him over about 5 years.

As I said, some people are idiots, both those preaching and those who buy into what is being said. That is no reason to condemn christianity or to try to silence it.

ziggy wrote:Or relationship with our God(s) should could from the conscience within us, not from the prods and admonitions of our friends and relatives and employers.

Our relaionship with God should come from the fact we love him because he first loved us and if we love him we then keep his commandments. John 14:15, Jesus speaking

ziggy wrote:So differences of opinion about theological matters mean that one party or the other is being "dishonest in their logic"? How do we know that you aren't making the Bible say what you want it to say, and being just as "dishonest in your logic" as you accuse me of being?

Yes, that is exactly what it means, someone is being dishonest.

How do you really know wha tthe bible says - You can read can't you. You have the ability to think don't you? The Gospel fairy doesn't just show up and bop you on the head with a wand and you have bible knowledge. You have to study and you have to "rightly divide the word of truth" 2 Timothy 2:15. Bible study isn't something you do once in a while, it is something you continuelly work at.

ziggy wrote:Then if not, what is religious freedom about? Apparently you would have it be about accepting only Cato's interpretation of what the Bible means.

There you go combining Government and religion. Relgious freedom is a god given right to chooce one's own destiny. God never forced anyone to to follow him. He just laid out the rewards and consequences and allowed people to choose for themselves. God doesn't want Zombies, he wants people that actually follow him out of love and devotion.

ziggy wrote:So how do we know who is being honest? Cato, or the skeptics of Cato's doctrine?

We have the bible as the standard. Whatever we do have to conform to it.

ziggy wrote:

But who is to hold them accountable? The banks and the other financial houses control Congress- because they own the political souls of congress. The election campaign finance laws assure that. So why would we expect Congress to be held accountable by anyone?

All governments get their power from the people. Apathy and dependance has played a role in this. If congress is corrupt then we have the ability to remove them. However, people just don't want to get involved and they don't want to take the time to learn about what is goign on. The corporations you hate so much are only as powerful as we the people allow them to be.

by TerryRC Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:04 am

When the courts prohibit a student from even invoking the name of God in a speach or from voluntary prayer

Speech. Speech. Speech.

If the student is using the podium as a pulpit, it needs to be prohibited.

This is the usual manufactured outrage. The only place where I have seen a student stifled like that in the news was when a class valedictorian had her mike cut for actually proselytizing from the podium after being told that her SPEECH couldn't be vetted as it was.

by ziggy Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:29 am

Aaron wrote:I believe the question is to you chicken little. Answer up or show yourself for the blowhard coward you are.

I refer my honorable friend to the answer I gave some hours ago.

by Cato Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:43 am

TerryRC wrote:When the courts prohibit a student from even invoking the name of God in a speach or from voluntary prayer

Speech. Speech. Speech.

If the student is using the podium as a pulpit, it needs to be prohibited.

This is the usual manufactured outrage. The only place where I have seen a student stifled like that in the news was when a class valedictorian had her mike cut for actually proselytizing from the podium after being told that her SPEECH couldn't be vetted as it was.

It is a God given right to speak your mind without the government being used to stop you. You may not like what is being said, but you nor your ACLU buddies have a right to silence a person. The sad part is you support the use of government to silence people and then you have the guts to say you believe in liberty.

by ziggy Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:09 am

Secular humanism is the default when it comes to religion, .............................

At last. I have been trying to get you to say that for several years. Thank you for finally owning up to what you have been hiding all this time. It is so telling that (1) you tried for so long to avoid saying it, always in the past saying that secular humanism was someone or others' agenda, when in fact it is, as you now acknowledge, just the "default" when there is no religion, and (2) that you do recognize secular humanism for what it is- which is no religion at all- as a theological matter.

............................... thus I don't err. People think that if you take God out of the picture, i.e. secular humanism, that we come neutral in religious matters. In reality the only thing that happens is that God is replaced with man.

So man becomes God? That is a new one for me. Whose doctrine is that?

A simple way of looking at this is that you replace the God I believe in with the god you choose to believe in. That certainly isn't neutrality.

I believe in the god that the most spiritually outspoken of the Founders believed in. You might want to read up on what Adams and Madison and Jefferson believed about god. They certainly did not believe that man was god- nor did they believe in the trinitarian god of the King James Bible.

by Aaron Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:27 am

TerryRC wrote:
If the student is using the podium as a pulpit, it needs to be prohibited.

Why? There is nothing in the Constitution that says a student cannot use a podium, state owned or not, as a pulpit. All the constitution says is that the state CANNOT sponsor it over another religion and if they are giving free access to ALL religions, they are not sponsoring it over other religions.

But by the state prohibiting speech, that IS a violation of the first amendment.

Actually, it's 2 violations of the first amendment.

by Aaron Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:27 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:I believe the question is to you chicken little. Answer up or show yourself for the blowhard coward you are.

I refer my honorable friend to the answer I gave some hours ago.

If you weren't such a coward Frank, perhaps we could have had a decent conversation.

As it is, you're a f&&&ing coward afraid of your own shadow.

by Cato Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:34 pm

ziggy wrote:
Secular humanism is the default when it comes to religion, .............................

At last. I have been trying to get you to say that for several years. Thank you for finally owning up to what you have been hiding all this time. It is so telling that (1) you tried for so long to avoid saying it, always in the past saying that secular humanism was someone or others' agenda, when in fact it is, as you now acknowledge, just the "default" when there is no religion, and (2) that you do recognize secular humanism for what it is- which is no religion at all- as a theological matter.

Huh

Secular Humanism becomes the default religion, I said that. Where you are wrong is that you want to refer to secualr humanism as no religion at all, which it isn't. It is a religion that places man as god.

Ziggy wrote:
So man becomes God? That is a new one for me. Whose doctrine is that?

Yours.

Ziggy wrote:

I believe in the god that the most spiritually outspoken of the Founders believed in. You might want to read up on what Adams and Madison and Jefferson believed about god. They certainly did not believe that man was god- nor did they believe in the trinitarian god of the King James Bible.

I have read so about what they believed. Not one of us, you nor me, nor all the historians on earth will ever know their actual beliefs. However, what they did believe is that to force one to support with their tax dollars, policy or religion in which they did not choose to participate was tyranny. They also believed that every person had the right to speak their mind.

You, on the other hand, demand that I support secular humanism with my tax dollars. You say it is not a religion, when in fact, it is. You seek to silence anyone who dares speak about God in a public forum. You justify this by saying that doing so on public owned property violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, when in fact it, you deny the free exercise of reigion.

by ziggy Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:09 pm

Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Secular humanism is the default when it comes to religion, .............................

At last. I have been trying to get you to say that for several years. Thank you for finally owning up to what you have been hiding all this time. It is so telling that (1) you tried for so long to avoid saying it, always in the past saying that secular humanism was someone or others' agenda, when in fact it is, as you now acknowledge, just the "default" when there is no religion, and (2) that you do recognize secular humanism for what it is- which is no religion at all- as a theological matter.

Huh Secular Humanism becomes the default religion, I said that. Where you are wrong is that you want to refer to secualr humanism as no religion at all, which it isn't. It is a religion that places man as god.

What is you evidence of that?

Ziggy wrote:
So man becomes God? That is a new one for me. Whose doctrine is that?

Yours.

No, I have never said that. And I do not believe in doctrines- only the free mind.

Ziggy wrote:

I believe in the god that the most spiritually outspoken of the Founders believed in. You might want to read up on what Adams and Madison and Jefferson believed about god. They certainly did not believe that man was god- nor did they believe in the trinitarian god of the King James Bible.

I have read so about what they believed. Not one of us, you nor me, nor all the historians on earth will ever know their actual beliefs.

Well, you seem to make a near profession of telling us what they thought about politics. Why are you in such trepedation about venturing an opinion as to what they thopught about theology?

You, on the other hand, demand that I support secular humanism with my tax dollars. You say it is not a religion, when in fact, it is.

How is it any more of a religion than no religion at all?

You seek to silence anyone who dares speak about God in a public forum.

Again, you have it wrong. Read what I actually say, not what you try to make it say.

You justify this by saying that doing so on public owned property violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, when in fact it, you deny the free exercise of reigion.

As relates to the public schools and religion, the federal courts agree with me far, far more often than they do with you. And it is the Courts, not Ziggy or Cato, that the Constitution appoints to settle questions of the law and of the Constitution.

by **SheikBen** Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:26 pm

Tell me, Ziggy and TerryRC, would you oppose a student thanking Nature's God in a valediction?

by Cato Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:40 pm

ziggy wrote:
Cato wrote:

Huh Secular Humanism becomes the default religion, I said that. Where you are wrong is that you want to refer to secualr humanism as no religion at all, which it isn't. It is a religion that places man as god.

What is you evidence of that?

From the Humanist Manifesto 1
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.
NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
From the Humanist Manifesto 2
We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common. But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. Traditional religions often offer solace to humans, but, as often, they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities. Such institutions, creeds, and rituals often impede the will to serve others. Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than courage. More recently they have generated concerned social action, with many signs of relevance appearing in the wake of the "God Is Dead" theologies. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

Ziggy wrote:

No, I have never said that. And I do not believe in doctrines- only the free mind.

So there is no truth?

Ziggy wrote:

Well, you seem to make a near profession of telling us what they thought about politics. Why are you in such trepedation about venturing an opinion as to what they thopught about theology?

It is inmateral to me what they thought about theology. Wha tis important to me is what they thought about liberty.

Ziggy wrote:How is it any more of a religion than no religion at all?

'Religion' - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

[quote"Ziggy"]

As relates to the public schools and religion, the federal courts agree with me far, far more often than they do with you. And it is the Courts, not Ziggy or Cato, that the Constitution appoints to settle questions of the law and of the Constitution. [/quote]

And the courts are wrong on this issue then.

by Sponsored content