How the Democratic Party opposes Christian Principles

[JohnLocke]

Clirus,

Oddly enough, I have to agree with you (to a very limited extent) the Democratic Party does indeed oppose using Christian Principles as you have expressed that term as the basis of the minimally acceptable standard of conduct under the law. I'm okay with that because I prefer to live under a representative democracy rather than a theocracy, at the moment. And in any event, each Democratic, Republican and Independent elected to high office takes an oath to (or at least affirms that they will) support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which is by your reasoning incompatible with Christian Principles.

Some things that are labeled "pornographic" by some people are in fact protected under the Constitution as free speech. I know this because there was a laundry list of such cases decided by the Supreme Court on that very issue.

The charge that it is hypocrisy to say of another, "I would not choose to do as you have done, but I would not support the government using force to prevent you from doing it or to punish you after you were determined to do it." is not valid. I would not have chosen to risk all of my life savings and other economic opportunities to become a movie star, but my friend Anson did and I have no problem with that. Is it hypocritical to say, "I would not feel immoral for eating pork, but I won't force it down your throat if it's part of your spiritual discipline to avoid it?"

Many of your statements are just facially incredible.
1. Your implicit argument, "Al Gore is a Democrat, therefore an Extreme Environmentalist, therefore if elected president would require citizens to worship nature instead of God." Um. No. Al Gore went to a Christian Seminary for Pete's sake.

2. Socialism requires a person to worship the Government instead of God. Again facially incredible, there are many socialist countries where churches are packed, England, Canada, Sweden, Germany, France, etc.

I could go on, but these are kind of bear trap threads in that they put forth rather extreme and emotionally leaden claims in the attempt to stir up controversy rather than to actively engage with someone with a differing opinion with the hopes of broaden one's understanding.

Peace

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

..... 2. Socialism requires a person to worship the Government instead of God. Again facially incredible, there are many socialist countries where churches are packed, England, Canada, Sweden, Germany, France, etc.

...

Not one of these countries is socialist.

Do you understand what socialist means?

 

[JohnLocke]

Not one of these countries is socialist.

Do you understand what socialist means?

Do I know what socialist means? I know what it means to me and to Merriam Webster:" any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" and a few other folks, but I confess I do not know what it means to you.

As each of the countries I mentioned have state ownership and control of at least some means of production and distribution of goods, I think it a fair statement in the absence of a particularized definition by you or the OP.

If we are going to use your definition of Socialism, then please provide it so we can speak intelligently.

Or more directly, if you could point out to me any written materials where the Democratic Party establishes as one of its goals imposing the worship of the Government (or State).

I am not aware of any such document, nor am I aware of any system of socialism that has worship of the Government as one of its objectives, as opposed to something like Fascism which I believe does have as one of its goals the worship of the State.

Then again, I try to always be open to enlightening my own ignorance.

Peace

 

[clirus]

JohnLocke quote

Some things that are labeled "pornographic" by some people are in fact protected under the Constitution as free speech. I know this because there was a laundry list of such cases decided by the Supreme Court on that very issue.

Response

Nothing that is evil is not protected by the Constitution. Anything that leads to disease, death and destruction is evil.

There is a lot of free speech that is not considered to be acceptable (politically correct).

Atheists were very aware that the way to do an end run around the majority of Americans was to go to the courts and have the courts legalize sin. Examples of sin that was legalized was pornography, abortion and homosexuality. Christians have said the Supreme Court does not understand the Constitution.

In the past the judicial system has been very sympathetic to Atheistic interpretations of the Constitution, but that has changed. The majority of the court is now conservative instead of liberal, so you are going to hear Atheists saying that the Supreme Court does not understand the Constitution.

The relationship of God's Law to Civil Law was best stated by Blackstone.

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-002.htm

William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England states, "This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."

The key point stated by Blackstone is that law was dictated by God himself, it is superior to all other law, and that no laws contrary to the laws dictated by God are valid.

 

[JohnLocke]

Clirus,

First, huh

" Nothing that is evil is not protected by the Constitution. Anything that leads to disease, death and destruction is evil."

I'm lost in the double negations, do you mean
"All that is evil is protected by the Constitution" or
"All things protected by the Constitution are evil"
or what.

I kinda figure that the right to vote is at least morally neutral.

"There is a lot of free speech that is not considered to be acceptable (politically correct). "

Okay, but that's hardly relevant. Pornography is illegal, some of what some folks have labeled Pornographic is in fact legally adjudicated to be such, and some of it has been legally adjudicated to not be such. Those are just facts. If you're using "Pornographic" in another way, please define it.

Clirus, I can respect you feel passionately that the Government should be informed by and comply with the Natural Law, unfortunately, the United States is not such a country.

As far as the general argument that Atheists, Liberals and other folks "made sin legal" that's simply not the case. Governments don't make anything legal, they make certain things illegal. After all, the 10th Amendment clearly provides that all powers not bestowed to the Federal Government or reserved by the several States are RETAINED by the people.

Peace

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nothing that is evil is not protected by the Constitution. Anything that leads to disease, death and destruction is evil.

Because of the double negative here, you've just conceded that everything that is "evil" is in fact protected by the Constitution.

Perhaps you think the Constitution is evil?

There is a lot of free speech that is not considered to be acceptable (politically correct).

Frowned on by polite society, but still protected by the Constitution.

Atheists were very aware that the way to do an end run around the majority of Americans was to go to the courts and have the courts legalize sin. Examples of sin that was legalized was pornography, abortion and homosexuality. Christians have said the Supreme Court does not understand the Constitution.

Christians are wrong, then. SCOTUS understands the Constitution just fine. It's those Christians such as yourself who seem to be in the dark about the Constituton's purpose.

In the past the judicial system has been very sympathetic to Atheistic interpretations of the Constitution, but that has changed. The majority of the court is now conservative instead of liberal, so you are going to hear Atheists saying that the Supreme Court does not understand the Constitution.

I'll believe that when I hear it -- I don't see SCOTUS outlawing homosexuality, erotica, or abortion anytime soon.

In fact, IIRC, there were a couple of cases of Church/State Separation which SCOTUS declined to hear -- both cases were decided by lower courts against the fundies, and SCOTUS let those decisions stand. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details; I'll look them up when I get a chance.

The relationship of God's Law to Civil Law was best stated by Blackstone.

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-002.htm

William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England states, "This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."

England... England... didn't we revolt against those guys once for having unfair laws?

The key point stated by Blackstone is that law was dictated by God himself, it is superior to all other law, and that no laws contrary to the laws dictated by God are valid.

And the key point of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are that laws are dictated by the people.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Do I know what socialist means? I know what it means to me and to Merriam Webster:" any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" and a few other folks, but I confess I do not know what it means to you.

As each of the countries I mentioned have state ownership and control of at least some means of production and distribution of goods, I think it a fair statement in the absence of a particularized definition by you or the OP.

...

Then according to you all I have to show is that the Federal or state givernment owns a company and the USA is socialist.

None of those originally cited countries adhere to the socialist economic theory. Indeed, the British Labour party has rejected state ownership of all production.

 

[clirus]

Torture and Privacy

Democrats are trying to take the high moral ground by opposing torture and protecting privacy.

The problem is that there is great danger in opposing torture and over protecting privacy.

Democrats know that you must do what ever it takes to win a war, as it did in WWII, but they do not have the backbone to handle the tough jobs. Doing what ever it takes to win, must include torture where appropriate. If an ugly look will get the information needed, then that is what was appropriate, but stronger measures are needed, they are also appropriate. To put this on a personal level, I always ask a person what they would do if the police had in custody a person that probably knew the location that their kidnaped child was being held.

In WW II, doing what ever it took to win, included fire bombing Germans cities and nuclear bombing Japanese cities that killed 50,000 men women and children in a single air raid. The torture used by soldiers in WW II is not know because there was total censorship in WW II.

Democrats are not competent to government because they will not do whatever it takes to win. They voted for the Iraq War, but only if the Republicans would fight the war. Democrats and the Atheistic Liberal News Media became traitors when they began criticizing the Iraq War in order to win control of the congress.

The danger of opposing torture is that a person that opposes torture opposes war, and opposing war is very dangerous. The Clinton Administration refused to fight a war and 3000 American men, women and children paid the price on 9/11.

The Old Testament of the Bible tells Christians that war is necessary and authorizes what ever it takes to win. Christians should never vote for democrats because democrats will not defend America.

Democrats defend privacy because they want to hide the Atheistic Lifestyle they advocate. Christians know that God knows their every though and deed so that there is no privacy for Christians.

The danger of privacy was shown by 9/11 and the Virginia Tech killings.

9/11 might have been prevented, except for a Clinton Administration policy that discouraged the sharing of information between the CIA and the FBI. Thus the activities going on in the Middle East (CIA) were not associated with the activities going on in America (FBI). If information had been shared, the Islamic Terrorists might have been linked with the flight training.

In the Virginia Tech killings, the information from the High School had not been shared with the College because everyone considered the privacy issues. If the information had been shared, the killings might have been prevented.

A statement of no torture and an over emphasis on privacy is not the moral high ground especially for the democratic party that supports extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle.

Republicans have yet to prove to me that they really support Christian principles, but democrats have proven they do "not" support Christian Principles.

No Christian (or anyone else) should ever vote for any democrat for any office.

 

[JohnLocke]

Clirus,

Wow, nice dodge.

1. Torture, the only country in the modern era to publicly endorse the use of torture, Israel, abandoned the practice because it wasn't reliable. In other words, it was an ineffective means of gathering intelligence, winning a war and all that other stuff you say Democrats lack the spine to do. Perhaps, reviewing the actual data on torture they've come to the conclusion that, like the "remote viewing" exercises of Project Stargazer, it simply doesn't work.

2. As far as your assumptions that information shared is necessarily acted upon, history begs otherwise, according to both the 9/11 Commission and the internal probe conducted by the FBI.

Whatever Clirus, it's clear to me that you do not intend to debate or exchange views, but merely pontificate. That's find, but I believe there are more appropriate fora.

Peace

 

[Nathan Poe]

Torture and Privacy

Democrats are trying to take the high moral ground by opposing torture and protecting privacy.

The problem is that there is great danger in opposing torture and over protecting privacy.

<snippage>

No Christian (or anyone else) should ever vote for any democrat for any office.

The upshot of all this is apparantly torture is one of those Christian Principles you claim the Democrats oppose.

Good for them, I say. No enemy is worth becoming in order to defeat.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Help me out here, clirus...

The Old Testament of the Bible tells Christians that war is necessary and authorizes what ever it takes to win.

There's this very annoying chap who likes to spam the board with a monologue that America is in the midst of a cultural war between Christians and Atheists.

While this man shall remain nameless, and I shall not pollute this thread by reposting his rant, I get the uncanny feeling that you'd probably agree with it.

That being said, clirus, would you agree to doing "what ever [sic] it takes to win" that cultural war?

How many commandments would you break to win?

How much of the Constitution would you toss out if it mean winning the "cultural war"?

If I could give you an absolute guarantee that you could single-handedly win the cultural war -- by personally and permantly deconverting from Christianity -- would you do it?

 

[IzzyPop]

This should be good...

*Grabs pork rinds and takes a seat (I'm low carb, popcorn is a no-no)

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

No mention of religion there: so far, so good.

Now, the economy?

 

[JohnLocke]

Then according to you all I have to show is that the Federal or state givernment owns a company and the USA is socialist.

None of those originally cited countries adhere to the socialist economic theory. Indeed, the British Labour party has rejected state ownership of all production.

As I stated earlier, if you have a different definition of socialist, provide it and I'll submit to using it and we can discuss the matter intelligently. If you are unable or unwilling to provide such a definition, then by default we're stuck with mine.

While I agree that the British Labour Party is not as a whole entirely socialist (I've not surveyed the entire group to be sure), certainly government control and regulation of the means, production and distribution of goods and services is different from Adam Smith's "Invisibile Hand" style of capitalism.

If we take the implicit premise from your remark, "That it is only fair to label a government as socialist if they absolutely and in all particulars believe and effectuate policies informed by and accomplishing the total control of productions, distribution of goods and services by the government, then I would suggest that socialist is an essentially meaningless term as no government could ever hope to meet these absolute criteria." By contrast, my implicit argument is that if a government's response to the economy is less than entirely laissez-faire as advocated by the Father of Capitalism, Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (good read by the way), then it must be at least admixed with something else. In most cases, this admixture is, in my opinion, more properly described as socialist in nature than otherwise. Worker safety, child labor laws, FDA safety screenings, etc. are not capitalistic (no holds barred the market will shake itself out) but rather authoritarian moves to prevent the market from shaking itself out.

As I said, if you would provide definitions, I'll gladly use them. But until then, or at least until you can indicate how mine are incorrect, we're stuck with mine by default.

Peace

 

[clirus]

Nathan Poe quote

Good for them, I say. No enemy is worth becoming in order to defeat.

Response

Some worry about becoming a bear by fighting the bear, I worry about becoming a bear by being eaten by the bear.

Nathan Poe quote

That being said, clirus, would you agree to doing "what ever [sic] it takes to win" that cultural war?

How many commandments would you break to win?

How much of the Constitution would you toss out if it mean winning the "cultural war"?

If I could give you an absolute guarantee that you could single-handedly win the cultural war -- by personally and permantly deconverting from Christianity -- would you do it?

Response

War is something that is authorized by congress, the representatives of the people. The Old Testament calls for the execution of a person that violates the law when the execution is authorized by the people. That is what is done today as a jury trial.

When congress authorizes a war, they should be very aware of what a war represents. America fought WW II and used both fire bombs and nuclear weapons that killed 50,000 people in a single raid. The degree of torture is not know because there was total censorship in WW II.
Were the people who voted for the Iraq War uneducated??

There is nowhere in the Bible that condones an individual taking the life of another individual except as authorized by the congregation. Thus, I would break no commandments, toss out any part of the Constitution or any other illegal activity.

I however have the right to vote and I have freedom of speech, and I intend to use those rights to influence as many people as possible that the Christian Lifestyle is a healthy lifestyle and the Atheistic Lifestyle is an unhealthy lifestyle. I hope to prevent democrats from being elected to any government office because of the democratic party support for extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle.

 

[clirus]

Rudolph Hucker quote

No mention of religion there: so far, so good.

Now, the economy?

Response

Good Cartoon. Thanks for sharing.

There are very real differences between democrats and Republicans.

This is going to be a very interesting election in 2008

 

[clirus]

Playing Politics

Democrats are useless at solving problems, but they are the masters of Playing Politics 24/7.

The two current issues are SCHIP and Armenian Genocide. The SCHIP issue is to make the Republicans look cold hearted. The Armenian Genocide issue is to create failure in Iraq to make the Republicans look bad. The Armenian Genocide issue seems to have blown up in the democrats face.

The purpose of the democratic "attack mode" against Republicans is to gain control of the government then switch to "steal mode" and to force the Atheistic Lifestyle of extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion and homosexuality on the American people. Bill and Hillary Clinton were masters of stealing. Bill Clinton never did anything except that he received a sexual favor or the DNC got a donation.

But with all that, Republicans have good news. The stock of the New York Times is going down and the BBC is going to fire reporters.

When compared to perfection, Republicans did not look good, but when compared to democrats, Republicans look brilliant. Without the propaganda support of the Atheistic Liberal News Media the democrats would look ridicules.

The democrats will look ridicules when there is no Atheistic Liberal News Media to cover their mistakes and evil intentions.

 

[IzzyPop]

Nathan Poe quote

Good for them, I say. No enemy is worth becoming in order to defeat.

Response

Some worry about becoming a bear by fighting the bear, I worry about becoming a bear by being eaten by the bear.

Nathan Poe quote

That being said, clirus, would you agree to doing "what ever [sic] it takes to win" that cultural war?

How many commandments would you break to win?

How much of the Constitution would you toss out if it mean winning the "cultural war"?

If I could give you an absolute guarantee that you could single-handedly win the cultural war -- by personally and permantly deconverting from Christianity -- would you do it?

Response

War is something that is authorized by congress, the representatives of the people. The Old Testament calls for the execution of a person that violates the law when the execution is authorized by the people. That is what is done today as a jury trial.

When congress authorizes a war, they should be very aware of what a war represents. America fought WW II and used both fire bombs and nuclear weapons that killed 50,000 people in a single raid. The degree of torture is not know because there was total censorship in WW II.
Were the people who voted for the Iraq War uneducated??

There is nowhere in the Bible that condones an individual taking the life of another individual except as authorized by the congregation. Thus, I would break no commandments, toss out any part of the Constitution or any other illegal activity.

I however have the right to vote and I have freedom of speech, and I intend to use those rights to influence as many people as possible that the Christian Lifestyle is a healthy lifestyle and the Atheistic Lifestyle is an unhealthy lifestyle. I hope to prevent democrats from being elected to any government office because of the democratic party support for extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle.

Can you say 'dodge the question'? Good. I thought you could.

 

[elanor]

The Old Testament of the Bible tells Christians that war is necessary and authorizes what ever it takes to win.

Please site the chapter and verse for this.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Exodus 15:3
The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Exodus 15:2-4 (in Context) Exodus 15 (Whole Chapter)

There is more, much more.