Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Secondly, Socialism is not a democratic system, the American representative republic is.
How can absolute truth change in a different context?
What matters is what the Bible says, because the words of God constitute absolute truth.
And the Bible says that all unbelievers are going to hell unless they repent and believe in Jesus Christ. So shouldn't our discussion be based on how best to do the will of God, rather than how best to obey the Constitution?
But the Kingdom of God is eternal, and I think we should be setting our minds on it instead of on American law.
We don't call the democratic socialists on this side of the big pond, we call them liberals.
Social equality and democracy had been championed by Christians hundreds of years before the word socialist had ever been contrived. Human rights are defended in the U.S. Constitution and the first right of Americans is religious liberty, not the censorship of religious ideology as it is in Europe.
I can do my own Wikipedia searches thank you and I know what socialism is. I grew up watching what it did to the Soviet Empire and I know what socialists think of religion. Invariably they are grossly intolerant of religious expression in the public square.
Now you are telling me I understand neither socialism or democracy and it's just another unsubstantiated insult hurled with blind indifference.
Because, when you've been shown to be glaringly wrong about something, the alternative is far less kind.Been there, done that! Why is it that evolutionists always assume creationists are ignorant and uneducated?
Because, when you've been shown to be glaringly wrong about something, the alternative is far less kind.
It's also worth noting that the claimed overlap between "liberal" and "democratic socialist" must only exist in certain parts of the United States. I've never heard the two terms used interchangeably in my four years of study in the political science department.
*laughs*
I wouldn't mind so much if the science that was taught, was not taught as fact, and if they actually explained the findings more clearly outlining the possibile problems and gaps they have, and informing people of other theories which offer different explanations.
I mean, if we are going to say it's abuse which has to be the most ridiculous claim I've heard so far, then we can fire that back right at you.
Digit
Actually I believe that children are under their parents guardianship until they leave home and marry. Until such a time, their parents control their teaching and this to me just reeks of secular societys fear of God.Yes, except why restrict that to evolution? We should also tell kids that out there there are folks who believe that the sun goes around the earth and that the Holocaust didn't happen, and we should present their viewpoints as well, right?
As for democracy. It's really amusing how Anglo-centric this conversation is. In Third World countries, governments legitimized by "democracy" actively oppress and persecute religious minorities. Democracy wasn't even a Christian invention, and it certainly isn't Christian in the part of the world which I came from!
We don't need to present views of things which we know to be false. Before you start jumping and down in excitement, we don't know that about evolution or Creationism.
I thought people with socialist vews over there got called 'communist'Funny, I have never seen anyone in American politics claim to be a socialist, democratic or otherwise. People with those views are called liberal in the States or don't you know anything about U.S. politics?
As far as being 'glaringly' wrong a couple of Wikipedia links neither contradicts nor disproves what I said previously.
mark kennedy said:Socialism is not a democratic system
Wasn't that fun?Wikipedia said:
Okay, stop. You're clearly not very well-versed in the political realm. You've tried to appear more knowledgeable than you actually are a few times now, and this is no exception. It's not funny at all, because people like you go around convincing people of ridiculous things, like no one in American politics claiming to be socialist. The only difference between it and lying is that you haven't put in the effort to actually make sure you're not telling the truth.Funny, I have never seen anyone in American politics claim to be a socialist, democratic or otherwise.
I thought people with socialist vews over there got called 'communist'
Yup. I just did a Google search for Bernie Sanders and communist OR commieI mean, for crying out loud. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, has been involved in the House and Senate for going on seventeen years now.
I long ago gave up being surprised when a significant population of my country is horribly wrong about something and doesn't seem to care. A nasty side-effect of the current anti-intellectual movement is that some people seem to be under the impression that they can misrepresent others and still retain some intellectual dignity.Yup. I just did a Google search for Bernie Sanders and communist OR commie
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...Sanders++communist+OR+commie&btnG=Search&meta=
Quite a lot of hits there with people who think your socialist representative is a commie.
If socialism includes a right to control capital, what would the meaning of democracy be in such a world?
Democratic decisions about where and how to make large investments sounds fine to me. Especially when most large pools of capital have been accumulated with significant public support in terms of grants, subsidies, tax exemptions, friendly tariffs, government contracts, etc.
When I see corporations stop going cap in hand to government for every handout they can get, I might consider that they have a right to private control of their profits. But as long as my tax money is going to create/sustain their profit, I figure I'm within my rights to have a say in how that profit should and should not be invested.
It is really ironic to see the same CEOs who have their hands so deep in the public purse complain about "socialism".
Yeah, of course. Anyone has the right to be as wrong as they want about something.Mark has every right to make his assertion that it isn't.
Democracy is a system of governmental power structure and has nothing to do with a state's economic system. It is simply government by the people. You can have a capitalist democracy just as easily as you can have a socialist democracy. This isn't up for debate. Regardless of how someone wants to misrepresent something, these terms have very precise definitions. You can't just screw around with them and say whatever you want, without running the risk of being very wrong.If socialism includes a right to control capital, what would the meaning of democracy be in such a world?
Yes, it is crazy, as democracy simply refers to government by the people and has nothing to do with an economic system.Is it crazy to say that the right to vote is somehow not "enough democracy" or real democracy where the state restricts rights for private ownership?
No, they aren't. Democracy means what it means.The point is that these concepts are quite flexible.
I don't have a problem with that. As I've already pointed out, these aren't things that the average person should necessarily know. I have a problem with the fact that once he was corrected (rather obviously), he decided to become defensive instead of admitting that he misspoke. This is the symptom of a mindset, just as it is when it happens in discussions on evolution.The question is not whether he is right -- since he has been accused of ignorance. (If someone questions whether George Bush is a "real" Republican, can you accuse them of ignorance? No.) The question is whether he has a rational basis for his argument, not whether he understands political science.
Wasn't that fun?
Okay, stop. You're clearly not very well-versed in the political realm. You've tried to appear more knowledgeable than you actually are a few times now, and this is no exception. It's not funny at all, because people like you go around convincing people of ridiculous things, like no one in American politics claiming to be socialist. The only difference between it and lying is that you haven't put in the effort to actually make sure you're not telling the truth.
I mean, for crying out loud. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, has been involved in the House and Senate for going on seventeen years now. He was elected to represent Vermont in the senate during the last mid-term elections, and there was a fair amount of media coverage of his promise to caucus with the Democrats despite his independent affiliation - a promise instrumental to their current Senate majority status. Now, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't pay attention to politics to know this. It isn't exactly at the first tier of common knowledge. But to have someone come in here, get uppity about what is and is not democracy, and act like they know more than people who do pay attention is less than kosher.
You don't want people to generalize creationists? You don't think those generalizations represent you? Then show us. Don't act like the rest of the creationists who come in here and make ridiculous, un-researched claims without pausing to consider that they might have gotten it wrong.
Yea, I liked the part where you completely ran off topic for your ad hominem argument.
That's not what I said, what I said was that was that we call them liberals. As always there is one inflammatory mischaracterization after another which is typical of TE arguments. The truth is the democratic socialists is as much an oxymoron to me as theistic evolution.
Typical, of course there are socialists in the U.S. political system but they belong to the left-wing AKA liberal end of the spectrum. Actually, I had never heard of Bernie Sanders and I'm aware that there are remnants of the now defunct Socialist party. So what?
Democracy in America includes the right to the free exercise of religious views. We don't allow religious doctrine to be taught in the public schools but we don't pass laws characterizing it as a human rights violation. By the way, socialists belong to a political philosophy that is colored by and animosity for traditional religion. It is no wonder that religion is attacked in Europe by socialists. The one Senator you pointed to as a socialist is in fact an atheist which is exactly what I would expect.
I made a passing remark that I found it amusing that a socialist was defending human rights by censoring the free exercise of religion. It's political opportunism, nothing more. I really don't care what kind of superficial generalizations and baseless assumptions you make in your rhetorical theatrics. It neither impresses me nor does it speak well of your worldview.
You have deliberately sidestepped the point I made about the free exercise of religion being the first right of Americans. That is a tradition going back to the Puritan Whigs and the Protestant Reformation. Democracy as a political idea was well established before the Socialism ever came along. The pretense that they must defend democracy from religion is ridiculas. The shear absurdity of creationism being some kind of a human rights violation is yet another example of the lengths modern Liberalism will go to further it's political and social agenda.
Been to the YEC subforum lately?As always there is one inflammatory mischaracterization after another which is typical of TE arguments.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?