When did Christians repeal that part about turning the other cheek? If Jesus ever comes back, he is going to be really pissed about the way his words have been shit on by his so-called followers.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. " * – Mahatma Gandhi *
I will not.
It is not so much “time honored” as simply “fossilized” with the Supreme Court borrowing silly phrases such as “ceremonial deism” to rationalize abdicating their responsibilty to stand up for law in the face of popular opinion.
“Ceremonial deism” insults me as a devout believer because it claims that things I deeply believe may be waved around like meaningless sports cheers to make some undefined group of people happy in their belief that it is OK to call the country “Christian” and impose their beliefs on their fellow citizens who do not share those beliefs.
I do not think that hanging an idolatrous plaque on a wall is going to bring either the Republic or sincere religion to their knees. However, I reserve the right to scorn the people who are willing to sacrifice the principles of both their law and their theology simply to act as though both practices are some sort of sport in which the spectators who cheer the loudest get to pretend that they have, somehow, participated with the actual players.
Since this country has a long and dishonorable history of refusing to respect the rights of minority beliefs, I feel justified in insisting that such idolatrous plaques should be removed from the halls of justice. Doing so reduces the number of occasions when some twit can claim their his or her prejudice is supported in law because the commandments are “even” hung up on a courthouse wall.
Is this sort of backhanded way to indicate that the Catholic Church is not Christian? 
Even the most casual research will show that the words translated for the Ten Commandments and the words translated for, let’s say, Leviticus 20:13, are two different words with different meanings.
You may feel I am quibbling but even in the USA, I am allowed to murder someone if they are about to murder me. (<– very lame trap)
War killing is fully provided for in the Bible.
For a religion that “attacks and oppresses” other religions, the Christians sure go easy on Hinduism, Buddhism, and by your thoughts it appears we totally forgot to oppress Judaism. In fact we forgot so much that ot appears we support them. (Oppress is the opposite of support)
The Christians believe it is what it is for… and I say they are doing a pretty good job. Not a perfect job, but a pretty good job. My opinion solely.
Someday I will run the demographic numbers and see for myself. I promise.
You mean the Crusades, right?
They ended almost 800 years ago. People didn’t have Bibles then and were subject to the whim of the people who did… who wielded absolute power and were thusly corrupted absolutely. Possibly. I am not expert on that part of history although it makes for excellent reading.
Most people nowadays have Bibles to read for themselves and it is really hard to convince them to go to war, so not many people try. War is now reserved for important things that can be researched, investigated, and voted on by Christians and non-Christians alike… although since the country is 76% Christian, it is mostly Christians. Membership in the fighting of the war is restricted, but not confined to Christians.
That is because the guilty, smart, sane people usually beat the rap.
Smart sane people think twice because of both police officers and the death penalty. Stupid people are immune to the existence of both police officers and the death penalty. Ain’t nothing gonna help the stupid and crazy… except the laws that protect stupid and crazy people nowadays.
[/quote]
< snickers > My, you lead a sheltered life. You mean like the Taliban ?
[/QUOTE]
I was thinking in terms of the death penalty as a legality in the United States, but I accept the reality smack. This is a global board and I must learn one way or another to think accordingly.
Well said.
I am a Deist who was brought up Catholic. Your words are wise and promote understanding and resolution rather than division.
Since I have no personal passion in the matter, other than doing my tiny part in protecting the Constitution of the USA by making sure I am thinking correctly, I am pretty much tapped out of concerns and questions.
Thank you all for the drift debate. (I wish my OP was debated so thoroughly… time to work on that one)
:dubious: I beg your pardon. I accused you of nothing you had not done, and I posted that link to Cecil’s classic column by way of showing that the “whites gave infected blankets to Indians” meme is a pure-D bullshit urban legend, although, for once, a UL with a clearly identifiable origin, as Cecil concluded. Did you even read the piece?!
You stated I equated liberals with anti-USA sentiment.
I have not done so. In fact, I have never used the word "liberal"on this board.
I apologize… twice. I thought you were disagreeing with me because you answered a personally directed (directed to me regarding my thoughts) question with only a link. Then when I nudged you a bit to ask what that Cecil’s story had to do with the USA infecting Indians, you either missed my nudge post or ignored it altogether… and you don’t miss nothin’! 
I read the piece about a hundred times in my life. It was in Cecil’s second book, I believe. That second book was not as bathroom friendly as the first book, but we built a bigger rack for it.
:dubious: No bullshit quibbling about “left” vs. “liberal”! It’s obvious you use the word “leftist” to mean anybody most of us would call “liberal.” But the Democrats are not anti-American, nor unpatriotic, nor anti-Constitutional; and neither are the Greens, the Socialist Party USA, nor the Democratic Socialists of America. You know less than shit about any of them if you think so.
I was a libertarian for many years. I was a liberal.
I was never a leftist. Leftists are anti-USA and their goals are fully incompatible with the Constitution. Socialists are leftist. Socialism is fully incompatible with the Constitution. Individual rights are where it is at… not collective rights. No collective should have rights in this country.
Democrats and liberals, for the most part, can get along fine with the Constitution as long as they adhere to the Constitution. Their plans are workable with amendments and that is fair game. Same goes for the GOP.
Any organization formed around a common goal is a collective. Your statement “No collective should have rights in this country” is therefore rendered nonsensical.
Those individuals in the group should, and do, have their rights as individuals. That is it.
To give rights to an organization is a foolish path. IMHO.
The Chamber of Commerce has a rather annoying billboard close to my house. Since an organization has no property rights, having no rights at all, its mine?
Not in the Constitution anyway. Collective rights are an abomination.
YMMV locally.
I would tend to think that locally, businesses/organizations have powers, not rights.
No, you were not, the two are opposites. Liberalism is about protecting the weak; libertarianism is about crushing the weak. Libertarianism is about the Law of the Jungle becoming the law of the land.
Really. In what way ? And if true, not that I believe it, why is that an argument against socialism and not an argument against the Constitution ?
Then individuals will have no means of doing much of anything. You can’t do much without forming an organization to do it; and as pointed out that organization needs things like property rights or it’ll just get robbed and destroyed.
Unless you are arguing for a return to feudalism, or something equally nuts, where the local Lord owns everything.
Liber. Latin. Free.
Liberal - a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
Libertarianism - a philosophy based on the principle that individuals should be allowed complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the same freedom of others.
Leftistm - A political term used to describe the acceptance, at least, in part, of the economic, social and philosophical ideas of Karl Marx. Collectivist. A person who belongs to the political left.
If you want to be one of the trendy people who use the exact Latin word for “free” in the description of leftists, then go ahead. Count me out. I am making a stand on it. In my eyes, an American liberal may be a bleeding heart, but is no Marxist… or at least shouldn’t be. This is the wrong country to foist Marxism on, due to our superior Constitution.
Read your tenets of Marxism and notice that barely any are Constitutional. Taking people’s wealth to foster equality in wealth? Banning religion? Centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state? Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose?
Yucko.
I do not think organizations should be illegal or anything. I do think organizations should not have rights. I like organizations, in fact, just as they are… without any rights.
Feudalism is almost as bad as Marxism. The commies didn’t mean for the peasants to starve, it is just that the system sucked so bad. Feudalism wasn’t as noble in first and final intent at all.
And the People’s Republic of China is run for the people’s benefit - oh wait, no it’s not. The label and reality of political groupings have little to do with each other. And the only liberty libertarianism stands for is the liberty of the rich and powerful to crush and exploit the less wealthy and powerful.
I’m afraid not. By that logic all “right wing” means " disciple of Hitler". There are an awful lot of leftists who have no interest in Marxism; the great majority, as far as I can tell.
And you’ll find few “leftists” or “socialists” who advocate that. Marxism is pretty much a dead issue; you sound like someone railing against the plots of the Whigs to take over the government.
Which is effectively the same as outlawing them. They won’t last if anyone who feels like it can indulge in fraud, vandalism and theft against it.
And if the Chinese jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge (all at once), would you?
It is very common for left wing groups and even countries to use deception in names. You mentioned China. That is a great one. We have a local one in town that uses Peace and Justice in it’s name but it seems to be hell bent on doing an injustice to people with money… namely taking it away to give to other people without letting the Constitution get in the way. They keep talking of a “peaceful revolution” to bring equality to the masses. The members do nothing but provoke people into shouting matches. That isn’t peaceful. That is annoying. They should be “annoying and unjust”, not “peace and justice”.
Hitler was a socialist. Where did you get the idea he was right-wing?
Socialists are left-wing.
All leftists and socialists advocate Marxist tenets. I have never found one who didn’t.
Go down the checklist.
There are local laws against fraud, theft and vandalism to organizations. There is nothing in the Constitution against fraud, theft, and vandalism to an organization.
Do you know what a Constitutional right is?
Wrong. Simply wrong. Do you actually know any? Do you ask them what they believe, or do you tell them what they believe? I know scads of lefties, hundreds of them over the course of a life, and I can count on one hand those who are in any meaningful way Marxist. The horse is dead, you can stop beating it now.
What makes you think Hitler was a socialist?
And right wing ones. You aren’t really going to claim that the coining of deceptive names is limited to the left ?
Because he was bad ! Same way everyone one know’s he’s an atheist.