rigorist

You got busted fair and square.

A distinction without meaning in the context of this discussion.

Matt the Medic

What other country's elections would you be voting for in Louisiana?

It doesn't require statistics. It is an extremist position and most Americans are moderates when it comes to such a thing. I'd even be willing to bet most U.S. Catholics wouldn't be in favor of such a thing. Yes I know, heretics, all of us.

It requires far more people to vote for it than a simple law. Odds of this happening, especially when given the amendment in question and its importance to the very foundation of this country: Slim to None.

You'd have better luck buying some cheap land in Africa, Asia, S. America or Antarctica and establishing your own theocracy than altering the First amendment to remove "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

Just face it: You ideas are blatantly un-American. The only way you'd get the Church in power of America would be through an extremely bloodly revolution, and considering you dare not cross U.S. law to enforce your churches law at your local level, pardon me for doubting that you have what it takes to lead such a revolution on a grander scale.

If anyone's still betting, odds are in favor of a high treason verdict.

Matt

Matt the Medic

That's not the point at all. Some will dispute anything. Fortunately in this case, "Some" doesn't exist in great enough quantity to even scratch at the surface of existing law.

I'm not arguing the rightness of it. I'm merely stating that the populace would never vote in favor of something *most* consider murder.

Matt

Apologist

Not really. I would hardly call the use of a fallacy to be "busting fair and square."

You don't consider there to be a big difference between doctrine and application? The Church has never changed its doctrine on what is best for human society. However, in recent times, it has certainly changed its application for certain situations.

That doesn't mean the teaching is different.

Apologist

You got me there.

I am really not sure. As I said, I have yet to see a newcast run a poll "Would you like to see Heretics burnt at the stake?" Last I heard, CNN hasn't run a report on that yet.

It's either 2/3's or 3/4's. I am not sure which.

I am sure a lot of people said that about Hitler changing Germany from a Republic to a Dictatorship.

Duh. :Cheeky:

Even without a bloody revolution, anything's possible. :huh:

Matt the Medic

I just thought of yet another reason why it wouldn't happen.

It requires essentially most of America to vote for their own death sentence.

Good luck with that.

Matt

Apologist

Bah! Get a good propagandist and I gaurantee you it is entirely plausible. If I recall correctly, Hitler had the support of Jewish businessmen up to the point of his election.

rigorist

Y'know . . . .

We've been going at this all afternoon and into the night and I have yet to hear you cite any doctrine or dogma.

Do you have any to support your position?

Matt the Medic

It requires a 2/3's vote in both Houses of Congress, then requires 35 of 50 states to ratify it. Each state's ratification process is different, but most require direct voting by the populace. Even after that, it's interpretation is up for judicial review.


Hitler didn't have to compete against the Internet nor 200+ years of American-style freedom. We are hardly 1920's Germany.



You're still dodging the question: Why aren't you enforcing the Church's laws as a servant of the Church? If Heretics deserve death what is stopping you now?

Matt

Matt the Medic

The Church supports such blatant lying?

If they do, it isn't Biblical.

Matt