Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 25th, 2011, 11:16 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1319558636' post='363836

Ah yes.......states rights. That's the dog whistle I thought you were coming from.



Thanks, but I much prefer a country where blacks and whites are free to intermarry and where the states - and the feds - are no longer free to impose Jim Crow laws or sharia laws (like DOMA).
I don't like a top-down secularocracy any more than a top-down theocracy. Secularists and theocrats have no problem with the federal government dictating to the states and the people. It's a "holy cause" to both groups.
A secular government doesn't force you to be secular, it simply allows for full religious freedom. You can no more impose your sharia laws on me than I can impose mine on you.



I fully understand why Christofascists don't like that compromise.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 11:21 AM   #22
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1319422355' post='363574

I didn't realise the American colonies chopped off the hands of thieves and carried out summary executions at football grounds
Just like Britain the colonies did cut off the hands, ears or head for a wide variety of offenses.




Proof?
garysher is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 11:58 AM   #23
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319560670' post='363846

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1319558636' post='363836']

Ah yes.......states rights. That's the dog whistle I thought you were coming from.



Thanks, but I much prefer a country where blacks and whites are free to intermarry and where the states - and the feds - are no longer free to impose Jim Crow laws or sharia laws (like DOMA).
I don't like a top-down secularocracy any more than a top-down theocracy. Secularists and theocrats have no problem with the federal government dictating to the states and the people. It's a "holy cause" to both groups.
A secular government doesn't force you to be secular, it simply allows for full religious freedom. You can no more impose your sharia laws on me than I can impose mine on you.



I fully understand why Christofascists don't like that compromise.

[/quote]



Exactly! And it seems pretty obvious. It is not two sides of the same coin.
waitingtables is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 01:22 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1319570161' post='363859

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1319560670' post='363846']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1319558636' post='363836']

Ah yes.......states rights. That's the dog whistle I thought you were coming from.



Thanks, but I much prefer a country where blacks and whites are free to intermarry and where the states - and the feds - are no longer free to impose Jim Crow laws or sharia laws (like DOMA).
I don't like a top-down secularocracy any more than a top-down theocracy. Secularists and theocrats have no problem with the federal government dictating to the states and the people. It's a "holy cause" to both groups.
A secular government doesn't force you to be secular, it simply allows for full religious freedom. You can no more impose your sharia laws on me than I can impose mine on you.



I fully understand why Christofascists don't like that compromise.

[/quote]



Exactly! And it seems pretty obvious. It is not two sides of the same coin.

[/quote]



Well, if 5,999 people at a public event wanted to conduct a public prayer, and one person who'd contacted the Freedom From Religion folks decided to throw a hissy fit and file suit, that one person's intention would overrule the other 5,999. Fact.



So no, I don't care for theocracy of secularocracy either.
imaginethat is online now  
Old October 25th, 2011, 01:25 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Well, if 5,999 people at a public event wanted to conduct a public prayer, and one person who'd contacted the Freedom From Religion folks decided to throw a hissy fit and file suit, that one person's intention would overrule the other 5,999. Fact.
Not a Fact.



If those 5,999 people want to pray together at a public event, they're free to do so. They just can't have state sponsorship or use state resources to do so.



And the only reason that one person had to contact an organization like the FFRF is because the state had been violating the constitution, not because the other 5,999 people were praying.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 01:25 PM   #26
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
That's not the same thing, Imaginethat.
waitingtables is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 01:55 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319577720' post='363879

Well, if 5,999 people at a public event wanted to conduct a public prayer, and one person who'd contacted the Freedom From Religion folks decided to throw a hissy fit and file suit, that one person's intention would overrule the other 5,999. Fact.
Not a Fact.



If those 5,999 people want to pray together at a public event, they're free to do so. They just can't have state sponsorship or use state resources to do so.



And the only reason that one person had to contact an organization like the FFRF is because the state had been violating the constitution, not because the other 5,999 people were praying.


Your opinion, and one that you will impose on others. The lengths to which you will go? Having a prayer before a high school football game is "state sponsorship" and "violating the Constitution." Sure.



We can save each other's time by not debating this for the umpteenth time. No one's mind will be changed.
imaginethat is online now  
Old October 25th, 2011, 03:17 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1319577936' post='363881

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1319577720' post='363879']

Well, if 5,999 people at a public event wanted to conduct a public prayer, and one person who'd contacted the Freedom From Religion folks decided to throw a hissy fit and file suit, that one person's intention would overrule the other 5,999. Fact.
Not a Fact.



If those 5,999 people want to pray together at a public event, they're free to do so. They just can't have state sponsorship or use state resources to do so.



And the only reason that one person had to contact an organization like the FFRF is because the state had been violating the constitution, not because the other 5,999 people were praying.
Your opinion, and one that you will impose on others. The lengths to which you will go? Having a prayer before a high school football game is "state sponsorship" and "violating the Constitution." Sure.



We can save each other's time by not debating this for the umpteenth time. No one's mind will be changed.

[/quote]

I guess the difference between us is that I see no problem with 5,999 people praying at a public school football game, while you see no problem when a state official leads that same prayer.



That's why I could never vote for Ron Paul - he doesn't see the problem either.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 03:38 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Ah yes.......states rights. That's the dog whistle I thought you were coming from.



Thanks, but I much prefer a country where blacks and whites are free to intermarry and where the states - and the feds - are no longer free to impose Jim Crow laws or sharia laws (like DOMA).




Shrekk, I was expecting more from you than that. I gave you ample credit for the court case you cited. That was a reasonable response, and a valid one. But here, you just punted the ball. I guess you ran out of valid things to say on the subject? That's OK; but just say so. Whereas I treated each of your points and give you a substantial counter-argument, you just give me a patronizing dismissal, as if none of what I wrote in response was even worth discussing. Come on. Look, if you don't have a counter-argument, then just tell me I make some good points, that perhaps you will consider, if you find yourself so inclined. Then come back if you are of mind after you consider some more arguments. But just to dismiss the entire argument is to punt on 4th down. You lose the ball.



And since when does your personal preference have any bearing on whether the states ever authorized the federal government to enforce the establishment clause back on the states? As far as I can tell, neither your preference of the truth, nor mine, nor any individual's personal preferences have any effect on the truth of the matter. But what you are saying to us is very telling of the manner in which you judge the truth. If you like the truth, you agree that it is the truth and the truth is valid. If you do not like the truth, you do not agree with the truth and the truth is invalid. So truth to you is more like your own opinion of what the truth should be rather than what the truth really is. It's almost as if your own personal preference ought to somehow outweigh the truth. And since the laws are based in truth, and since determining the truth is a primary function of the courts, then that can only mean that your own personal preference toward the meaning and interpretation of the laws should in your mind outweigh the intent of the will of the people as expressed through their representatives. So you think that if a case is decided according to your own personal preferences, it is a valid decision. If it does not, it is not.



Well, don't feel alone, my knew friend. That's how I expect most folks think, both Democrat and Republican, both liberal and conservative. And that is precisely the reason that, regardless whether one is a member of the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party, anyone who believes that there is governing authority that derives from one's own personal opinion, when that opinion is solely based upon one's arbitrary personal preference, that person is mistaken. That person is nothing more than a democrat. Note that I did not capitalize 'democrat.' A democrat is someone who acts on the belief that governing authority originates in personal opinions and preferences. Well, in some nations, that may be true. But America is no democracy and therefore there is no governing authority founded in one's own arbitrary personal preferences or opinions. No, America is a republic whose governing authority is founded upon certain principles established in the Declaration of Independence. One of those principles is that authority for government, whether self-government, local government, national government, is endowed first to individuals directly from God. Those individuals distribute God-given authority to a organized governing bodies by consent. The rules by which consent is measures are themselves established by consent. But nowhere in all of this does anyone's arbitrary personal opinion of what the truth ought to be affect what the truth actually is.



OK, maybe you don't believe in God. Fine, you don't have to believe in God if you are not predisposed. But I will tell you this, the only thing that stands between you and a government that might deny you of every right you have is God, and the respect that government has for the authority of God. Other than that, all of the personal opinions and preferences of the truth you might ever have can't save you from a government that disagrees with you and doesn't like you, or is fearful of you. A government which respects no higher authority than itself and which does not like you, Shrekk, WILL DESTROY YOU. So you just keep to your own personal preferences of the truth. You keep maintaining that God no has bearing on whether the government can justifiably remove any right you have, and take every possession that you own, and deny you even the right to appeal. You do that. Because as soon as the government knows that Shrekk denies God exists, that same government understands that Shrekk has no rights that cannot be taken away if the government so desires. And you can count the splendid Bill of Rights out as well. That is because each of those rights retained by the states or by the people came from God as well. And the government knows that. And so as soon as God is no longer a valid consideration, a valid fear, then no longer are the Bill of Rights binding on the government. Whether you understand it or not, whether you prefer it or not, the biggest ally you have, to maintain your rights against a government that would otherwise take them away, is the notion that government must respect the authority of God.



-Hank
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 03:58 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
Shrekk, I was expecting more from you than that. I gave you ample credit for the court case you cited. That was a reasonable response, and a valid one. But here, you just punted the ball. I guess you ran out of valid things to say on the subject? That's OK; but just say so. Whereas I treated each of your points and give you a substantial counter-argument, you just give me a patronizing dismissal, as if none of what I wrote in response was even worth discussing.
I think I rather well illustrated why the states can no longer be theocracies. Too bad if you didn't like the response. It was pretty clear that you were coming from a states rights, theocratic perspective, and I was right.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
And since when does your personal preference have any bearing on whether the states ever authorized the federal government to enforce the establishment clause back on the states? As far as I can tell, neither your preference of the truth, nor mine, nor any individual's personal preferences have any effect on the truth of the matter.
My personal preference of course is irrelevant to the law, I'm just saying that I prefer our secular republic to your theocracy. So apparently did our founders.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
But I will tell you this, the only thing that stands between you and a government that might deny you of every right you have is God, and the respect that government has for the authority of God.
Bzzzzt! Wrong! Our secular government is entirely silent on the issue of gods, yours or anyone else's, and gives no respect to any god. Your imaginary friend is completely irrelevant to our constitution and laws. When imaginary friends have improperly been introduced into legislation or court decisions, those laws and rulings have inevitably been ruled unconstitutional. It's true that we have yet to rid our secular laws of all of your sharia law nonsense, but we're close - and in the interim none of it has real legal effect. For example, Alabama only repealed its anti-miscegenation statute (a sharia law of the Southern Baptists) in 2000, even though it's been unconstitutional and unenforceable since 1967.
skrekk is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa

Tags
law, libya, sharia, strict



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Libya Embassy Security Zack Current Events 44 October 28th, 2012 09:19 AM
Top Revelations from Libya Hearing Jimmyb Current Events 21 October 12th, 2012 09:57 AM
$25 MILLION in aid on its way to Libya Dude111 Americas 2 April 22nd, 2011 02:08 PM
One more reason to Despise Sharia... tadpole256 Religion 5 August 6th, 2010 04:59 PM
Canada struggles with Islam's Sharia law Steven M Religion 3 September 8th, 2005 08:11 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.