Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fromtheright · 12-11-2002, 08:04 PM

Elaborate,

our government is not based on the Declaration of Independence, any more than it is based on the Articles of Confederation.

WADR (and great respect, I might add, for your tremendous arguments and logic in the abortion debate in another thread), while I agree that as to the form of government the DoI had very little if any to do with the Constitution I do believe that the natural rights statements of the former are implicit in the limits on the Federal government's power, as argued by Federalists in their answer to the anti-Fed's pleas for a Bill of Rights, as in James Wilson's speech on the subject.

Radorth · 12-11-2002, 08:15 PM

Quote:

... since the Supreme Court is still letting us pray in public places.

Haha! Just who is spreading the "alarmist nonsense" here?

Of course you had to snip my statement to make a point, er, well, perhaps I'm being too kind. It is not I who goes around whining about Christians in office, or non-Christians in office, for that matter. I vote for all kinds of spiritual nits. It's my civic duty.

Rad

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

lpetrich · 12-11-2002, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud:
<strong>
(on how the US Constitution allows the preaching of the True Gospel...)
Then please explain the 1700 some-odd years of Christianity that preceeded the Contitutional Convention.</strong>

He thinks that it was all fake Xianity.

Buffman · 12-11-2002, 08:23 PM

Radorth

Remember this URL?

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html</a>

The questions you asked about the "Treaty" are all answered there. Perhaps you are simply too busy, rather than intellectually lazy, to do any reasonable amount of homework. That's why I elected to spoon feed you a specific URL from among the many I have collected. That you are not taking advantage of the information I am providing is your problem, not mine. But then, perhaps my information does not support your supernatural faith beliefs and that's why you continue to ignore it. I note that you rather gleefully use anything provided by me that supports your approach to specific church-state separation issues. Facts are facts! That's fine with me.

Perhaps if you would start citing specific, verifiable, evidence/data/references for the claims you make, you could earn some credibility. But then, I doubt that you are concerned with improving your own credibility.It appears that you are more interested in attempting to disparage mine. No problem here.

If I'm in error, I gladly admit it. That means that I have learned something even more important than new knowledge. It means that I have been able to rid myself of one more piece of erroneous baggage that has been weighing me down for years, and free my mind to go to places that most theists fear to go...if they are even aware that those places exist.

Quite specifically, your allegations/contentions/ statements seem designed to prop up faith beliefs rather than uncover accurate, verifiable, facts. I have been waiting in vain for you to prove otherwise.

Radorth · 12-11-2002, 08:28 PM

Quote:

You're missing the point, Radorth. Marx didn't advocate mass slaughter (that I know of). However one who might have called himself a Marxist did. Just because a Marxist holds certain principles does not mean that Marx himself did. Likewise just because a Christian holds certain principles does not mean that those principles are Christian.

That's what I've been saying for three months here. And I've also been saying the Framers (except 2 or 3) made these kinds of distinctions about Jesus and Christianity, Protestants and "Papists", polluted and unpolluted Christian teaching.

Every time they opened their mouths, they made many of the "free-thinkers" here look like mindless slugs. Meanwhile I'm on record as saying Marx had some intelligent and useful things to say, and had commendable ideals, when compared to your average sage, anyway.

Rad

Radorth · 12-11-2002, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Remember this URL?

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html</a>

The questions you asked about the "Treaty" are all answered there. Perhaps you are simply too busy, rather than intellectually lazy, to do any reasonable amount of homework. That's why I elected to spoon feed you a specific URL from among the many I have collected.

Let's see. I ask a question about Tripoi this morning, and you are saying I should have what, sent the whole day looking through all your URl. find the one containing the treaty of Tripoli info among 50 major subjects and know I have the right answer by now? Am I reading you correctly? Maybe I should stop going to work and posting here and altogether and just read the thousands of pages from your favorite websites, and just study your posts while I endure comments about your spoon feeding me?

Apparently you are too busy to connect the URL to a question I asked, but then if I don't figure it out anyway, while answering 15 other posts, I'm somehow lazy or otherwise missing your mark.

I suppose if I was retired and all I studied was politics and church state stuff and didn't have a full time job and a house to repair I might meet your standards. But you already seem to know how wonderful you are, judging by your endless condescending remarks, which by the way, you don't use with skeptics, however inane they get.

Well at least you're quoting stuff you never bothered with on an even more relevant thread, which you never would have if I hadn't presented an extract. Right? I don't suppose you recall sitting idle while the automaton atheists were blabbing "Washington never mentioned Christ" do you?

Rad

fromtheright · 12-11-2002, 09:13 PM

Buffman,

I believe there is a world of difference between the accuracy of the posts of a Christian the likes of a Radorth and those of a Conservative, who happens to be Christian, like 'fromtheright'. That is one of the more difficult problems I have encountered here. Determining the differences between Christians who happen to be Conservatives and Conservatives who happen to be Christians.

Not to be flippant or smart-ass but I would seriously suggest that the best method might be to simply ask us.

Buffman · 12-11-2002, 11:14 PM

Radorth

I hope you feel better. You certainly do represent your Christian faith, and the teachings of your Messiah, in a manner which is unfamiliar to me. Now, try responding to any of the information/questions being asked of you instead of making these feeble diversionary attacks and excuses. If you don't like being spoon fed then please respond to the "specific" questions being directed at you.

How is the US Constitution a result of "Christian principles?"

When you are done beating your chest, please cite, with the specific Book, Chapter and Verse from your sacred Holy Bible, those principles which were directly responsible for items in our Constitution. That is all anyone has ever asked of you that matters in this topic. All the rest is extraneous and irrelevant to the original request...of you. Either that, or simply admit that you can't. Why is that so difficult for you? Perhaps you should go back and review Cthulhu's post on page 4. Or go back to page 2 and read the comments of fromtheright. Or take some of the time you waste on attacking me to read mfaber's URL.

<a href="http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/usa.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/usa.htm</a>

Either support your contentions with verifiable evidence or admit that they are only your faith belief opinions...to which you are fully entitled.

Buffman · 12-11-2002, 11:25 PM

fromtheright

You are correct. Though I read your comment..."I differ on a lot, even about the Founding, but, though I'm probably not in your corner, I'm at least not in the opposite corner on the question posed"... I have been unable to tell from your posts and the sources you cite exactly where you do stand.

You and Radorth claim to be for C-SS yet constantly support those who are against it. That is most confusing. You claim to be a conservative without explaining what that word really means to you. A conservative/moderate/liberal conservative? A Christian Reconstructionist conservative? A radical Christian fundamentalist conservative, or just a devout Christian conservative? What, if any, are the differences in all these labels? No matter how hard I try, I can not turn Christian One into Christian Two. They are not identical beyond labeling themselves as Christians.--- The same is true for those Democrats, or Atheists, that call themselves Liberals. Liberal to what degree? About what?

I thought conservatives were primarily Republians who might, or might not, be religious. I thought that Republicans were for a smaller federal government and greater fiscal responsibility. What is this current Republican government doing? So yes! I'm asking. Exactly what is it that you believe. However, your answer, and this new issue, should be in a topic string of its own...don't you agree?

HRG · 12-12-2002, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Living Dead Chipmunk:

Funny, they were possible all over Europe for a very long time before America was founded... and are still possible in Europe, even though none of them have Constitutional safegaurds.

This is obviously wrong. Freedom of conscience is contained in every European constitution, and in the European Convention of Human Rights which is enforced by the European Court of Human Rights.

Unlike Coca-Cola, human rights are not entirely an American invention!

Regards,
HRG.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-11-2002, 08:04 PM	#151
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Elaborate, our government is not based on the Declaration of Independence, any more than it is based on the Articles of Confederation. WADR (and great respect, I might add, for your tremendous arguments and logic in the abortion debate in another thread), while I agree that as to the form of government the DoI had very little if any to do with the Constitution I do believe that the natural rights statements of the former are implicit in the limits on the Federal government's power, as argued by Federalists in their answer to the anti-Fed's pleas for a Bill of Rights, as in James Wilson's speech on the subject.

12-11-2002, 08:23 PM	#154
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Radorth Remember this URL? <a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html</a> The questions you asked about the "Treaty" are all answered there. Perhaps you are simply too busy, rather than intellectually lazy, to do any reasonable amount of homework. That's why I elected to spoon feed you a specific URL from among the many I have collected. That you are not taking advantage of the information I am providing is your problem, not mine. But then, perhaps my information does not support your supernatural faith beliefs and that's why you continue to ignore it. I note that you rather gleefully use anything provided by me that supports your approach to specific church-state separation issues. Facts are facts! That's fine with me. Perhaps if you would start citing specific, verifiable, evidence/data/references for the claims you make, you could earn some credibility. But then, I doubt that you are concerned with improving your own credibility.It appears that you are more interested in attempting to disparage mine. No problem here. If I'm in error, I gladly admit it. That means that I have learned something even more important than new knowledge. It means that I have been able to rid myself of one more piece of erroneous baggage that has been weighing me down for years, and free my mind to go to places that most theists fear to go...if they are even aware that those places exist. Quite specifically, your allegations/contentions/ statements seem designed to prop up faith beliefs rather than uncover accurate, verifiable, facts. I have been waiting in vain for you to prove otherwise.

12-11-2002, 09:13 PM	#157
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Buffman, I believe there is a world of difference between the accuracy of the posts of a Christian the likes of a Radorth and those of a Conservative, who happens to be Christian, like 'fromtheright'. That is one of the more difficult problems I have encountered here. Determining the differences between Christians who happen to be Conservatives and Conservatives who happen to be Christians. Not to be flippant or smart-ass but I would seriously suggest that the best method might be to simply ask us.

12-11-2002, 11:14 PM	#158
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Radorth I hope you feel better. You certainly do represent your Christian faith, and the teachings of your Messiah, in a manner which is unfamiliar to me. Now, try responding to any of the information/questions being asked of you instead of making these feeble diversionary attacks and excuses. If you don't like being spoon fed then please respond to the "specific" questions being directed at you. How is the US Constitution a result of "Christian principles?" When you are done beating your chest, please cite, with the specific Book, Chapter and Verse from your sacred Holy Bible, those principles which were directly responsible for items in our Constitution. That is all anyone has ever asked of you that matters in this topic. All the rest is extraneous and irrelevant to the original request...of you. Either that, or simply admit that you can't. Why is that so difficult for you? Perhaps you should go back and review Cthulhu's post on page 4. Or go back to page 2 and read the comments of fromtheright. Or take some of the time you waste on attacking me to read mfaber's URL. <a href="http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/usa.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/usa.htm</a> Either support your contentions with verifiable evidence or admit that they are only your faith belief opinions...to which you are fully entitled.

12-11-2002, 11:25 PM	#159
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	fromtheright You are correct. Though I read your comment..."I differ on a lot, even about the Founding, but, though I'm probably not in your corner, I'm at least not in the opposite corner on the question posed"... I have been unable to tell from your posts and the sources you cite exactly where you do stand. You and Radorth claim to be for C-SS yet constantly support those who are against it. That is most confusing. You claim to be a conservative without explaining what that word really means to you. A conservative/moderate/liberal conservative? A Christian Reconstructionist conservative? A radical Christian fundamentalist conservative, or just a devout Christian conservative? What, if any, are the differences in all these labels? No matter how hard I try, I can not turn Christian One into Christian Two. They are not identical beyond labeling themselves as Christians.--- The same is true for those Democrats, or Atheists, that call themselves Liberals. Liberal to what degree? About what? I thought conservatives were primarily Republians who might, or might not, be religious. I thought that Republicans were for a smaller federal government and greater fiscal responsibility. What is this current Republican government doing? So yes! I'm asking. Exactly what is it that you believe. However, your answer, and this new issue, should be in a topic string of its own...don't you agree?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.