Pew report shows American Christian numbers in decline

[smaneck]

Only because the government has overstepped it's bounds. As has been my claim. I'm hoping that someone will come along and restore us to the ideals of the founding fathers and the Constitution and we will become a Constitutional Republic again. This socialist-leaning democracy will drive the government into the ground and bankrupt us all in a very short time.

If Bernie Sanders gets elected president then you can accuse our government of being socialist. But I can't help but see that you are contrasting a republic with a democracy. However, if you really want to stop our government from ignoring the Constitution and going bankrupt you perhaps should start demanding that our standing army with multi-year military contracts be disbanded. The Constitution only allowed for a standing navy. An army was supposed to be formed and funded in cases of emergency and then funded for a period not to exceed two years.
Our founding fathers believed that a standing army would lead to tyranny.

 

[smaneck]

Actually, I don't have a problem. Read my later post. There is a difference between Public and Private. The difference has to do with where the money comes from, not who populates it.

Correct, and if the money comes from the customer (i.e. the public) it is not entirely private. It is only private if you make it a membership club.

 

[smaneck]

The whole point of his post was that the government is overstepping it's bounds and forcing private people and their businesses (businesses that do not take money from the government) to have to abide by restrictions and allowances that binds the government. The government should not be forcing private citizens to do this. Private is private. That is the whole purpose of being private, it is your house and you can invite whom you want. The government was not created to run, or ruin, people's lives (as the case may be.)

So you oppose the entire Civil Rights Act and believe Woolworth had the right to stop black people from eating at their lunch counters?

http://imgick.gulflive.com/home/gul...r-john-salter-anne-moody-0ce44093d12d7ac9.jpg

 

[A New Dawn]

You are welcome to your (wrong) opinion.

The idea that businesses should be able to discriminate based upon skin color or religious belief lost. It should remain lost. People who fight for it either are bigots or don't realize they are fighting for bigotry.

I fight for the right of the person to maintain the freedom the Constitution and God give him. Freedom from governmental tyrrany. If they want to stab themselves in the foot by doing the wrong thing, they are entitled. That is how the court of public opinion works.

 

[A New Dawn]

Ah the founding fathers. Shall we revoke women's right to vote and own property, and treat African Americans as 3/5 of a person before reinstating slavery?

non-sequitur

 

[awitch]

I fight for the right of the person to maintain the freedom the Constitution and God give him. Freedom from governmental tyrrany. If they want to stab themselves in the foot by doing the wrong thing, they are entitled. That is how the court of public opinion works.

The job of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to protect all citizens from the court of public opinion.

 

[awitch]

non-sequitur

You explicitly said you wanted someone to restore the ideals of the founding fathers. The founding fathers supported slavery and enthusiastically rejected women's rights.

 

[awitch]

.

 

[A New Dawn]

If you can't substantiate what you say about killings in NYC being shariah based then there is no reason for us to believe what you say it true. Acts of terrorism are not shariah-based. Honor killings likewise are not shariah-based. Shariah courts in the West are used solely for the purpose of arbitration just as are courts for Orthodox Jews. They do not carry out hudud punishments. Paul, as a Muslim in the British Isles has already attested to this.

As for my being up-to-date on these matters, I believe the fact that my PhD in which my major field was Islamic history gives me more credentials in these matters than someone who refuses to back up their personal prejudices with evidence.

I'm so thrilled that you have a degree like that. The very fact that you qualify your terms must mean that there are other sharia-type judgments and penalties. Since you mentioned hudud, I'll put a definition up for everyone.

hu·dud
or hu·dood (ho͞o-do͞od′)
n. Islam
The portion of shari'a law concerning the trial and punishment of the most serious crimes, including adultery, theft, and murder, prescribing penalties such as flagellation, amputation, and beheading.
​

And look! It is a portion of sharia law! Just because the visible courts that are trying to get set up now say they are only for civil issues doesn't mean that there aren't these other types of activities going on. They might be underground, but they are going on. And the Imam Choudrey, who advocated for the beheading of the woman who ran the cartoon contest are proof that these types of actions are becoming more prevalent and the people are getting bolder in doing them.

 

[A New Dawn]

The job of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to protect all citizens from the court of public opinion.

No, it's job is to protect the people from the government. They stand together with the Declaration of Independence to protect us, and give us the right to throw off a tyrannical government. You really need to get some proper education. There is NOWHERE that the Constitution gives the government the right to trample on the citizens. According to the constitution, the citizens OWN the government. That is why the government is trying to hard to shred the Constitution.

 

[A New Dawn]

You explicitly said you wanted someone to restore the ideals of the founding fathers. The founding fathers supported slavery and enthusiastically rejected women's rights.

I'm sure you can point out those things for me in the correct line and verse of either the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Short of that, your comments are non-sequiturs.

 

[bhsmte]

No, it's job is to protect the people from the government. They stand together with the Declaration of Independence to protect us, and give us the right to throw off a tyrannical government. You really need to get some proper education. There is NOWHERE that the Constitution gives the government the right to trample on the citizens. According to the constitution, the citizens OWN the government. That is why the government is trying to hard to shred the Constitution.

Do you agree with the civil rights act, or do you believe it should be revoked?

Would you agree, that the United States has a long history of assuring equal rights for all citizens?

You see, we used to have slavery until it was outlawed. We used not allow allow women or blacks to vote. We used to not allow interracial marriages. We used to allow blacks to be treated like second class citizens in publically accommodating businesses.

So, are you against equal rights for all citizens?

 

[LoAmmi]

I've never seen someone argue for the ideals of the founding fathers, meaning we have to look at their other writings to ascertain what they desired, and then argue for the "as-is" written text of the Constitution within the same thread in the same day. Seems like that blows in the wind as needed.

 

[awitch]

I'm sure you can point out those things for me in the correct line and verse of either the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Short of that, your comments are non-sequiturs.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Women didn't win the right to vote until the 19th amendment which passed in 1919.

(I have a BS degree in computer science with a double minor in history and philosophy, BTW)

 

[smaneck]

Just because the visible courts that are trying to get set up now say they are only for civil issues doesn't mean that there aren't these other types of activities going on. They might be underground, but they are going on. And the Imam Choudrey, who advocated for the beheading of the woman who ran the cartoon contest are proof that these types of actions are becoming more prevalent and the people are getting bolder in doing them.

First off this idiot Anjem Choudary doesn't live in the US and he is not a shariah court. So what possible bearing does he have on this discussion. I might as well pull that politician from Arkansas who holds that disobedient children should be stoned to death as an example of what the Christian right wants to do. If they are shariah courts imposing hudud punishments prove it, and if you can't prove it you are committing slander. And you know what Proverbs says about slanderers.
Paul's a Muslim. He can tell you what he thinks about Choudary.

 

[Niblo]

First off this idiot Anjem Choudary doesn't live in the US and he is not a shariah court. So what possible bearing does he have on this discussion. I might as well pull that politician from Arkansas who holds that disobedient children should be stoned to death as an example of what the Christian right wants to do. If they are shariah courts imposing hudud punishments prove it, and if you can't prove it you are committing slander. And you know what Proverbs says about slanderers.
Paul's a Muslim. He can tell you what he thinks about Choudary.

Hi Susan,

Choudary is a bigot who speaks only for his kind. He speaks not a jot for the vast majority of the world's Muslims. He and the Arkansas politician you refer to are two sides of the same worthless coin.

Have a great day!

 

[A New Dawn]

First off this idiot Anjem Choudary doesn't live in the US and he is not a shariah court. So what possible bearing does he have on this discussion. I might as well pull that politician from Arkansas who holds that disobedient children should be stoned to death as an example of what the Christian right wants to do. If they are shariah courts imposing hudud punishments prove it, and if you can't prove it you are committing slander. And you know what Proverbs says about slanderers.

I don't really have to prove anything. I just have to observe what goes on around me in society, and any amount of nay-saying from you doesn't negate the fact that people are doing this. They might be terrorist in nature, and likely not at the hands of the people trying to set up the sharia courts, and Choudary might be an idiot, but in case you haven't noticed, we have a whole slew of idiots in Syria and Iraq trying to take over the world with claimed cells within the US.

Paul's a Muslim. He can tell you what he thinks about Choudary.

Who is Paul?

 

[Niblo]

Who is Paul?

Pleased to meet you.

Paul.

 

[Theway]

You have a slight problem.

These businesses are not private, they are PUBLICALLY accommodating businesses. They may be owned privately, but they have voluntarily chosen to open their doors to the public.

If a business wants to be truly private, they can do so, by taking memberships and only serving those they have chosen to accept memberships from. Similar to how private country clubs work, private schools and even churches, they are free to accept members according to their guidelines.

Unlike the old adage, the business of Government is not business, and we never should have allowed the government a toe in the door on that one.
The paradox created by such laws is I can walk into any business and see a sign which says that they can refuse service to anyone.... It's just becomes illegal if you state a reason why.
You are wrong also about private clubs... There have been several lawsuits which have stated that you are not free to accept or reject members if there are business conversations between one club member to another inside the club house, even if it is casual and without the knowledge of the club. This lawsuit was filed by a woman who was refused admittance to a all male club. Her complaint was that if they were talking business without herpesent she would not be able to fairly compete in the workforce because she did not have access to that information.
Like I said... These type of laws are only a slippery slope to restrict people's freedom.

 

[bhsmte]

Unlike the old adage, the business of Government is not business, and we never should have allowed the government a toe in the door on that one.
The paradox created by such laws is I can walk into any business and see a sign which says that they can refuse service to anyone.... It's just becomes illegal if you state a reason why.
You are wrong also about private clubs... There have been several lawsuits which have stated that you are not free to accept or reject members if there are business conversations between one club member to another inside the club house, even if it is casual and without the kniwledge of the club.
Like I said... These type of laws are only a slippery slope to restrict people's freedom.

A publically accommodating business can put up any sign they want, but they can not refuse service to a protected class without just reason; health, safety, dress code, etc..

The deal with private clubs is in how they operate. If they operate in a way that they become less private; then they may have some restrictions.

Remember when Augusta National Golf club accepted their first black member around 1990? They only did that, from external pressure from the PGA and it was not from any government entity or law. Augusta National could have rejected anyone membership they saw fit to.