US Vice President choice thread...

[jAQUAN]

why debate the guy when he's his own best opponent?

point

• (that's what happens when you have broken homes because no one wants to pay attention to those stupid family values)
  
• However, the trend usually is to turn from values that have anything to do with religion (in this case Christianity) because certain people hate the concept of Christianity - and that hate usually goes back to the whoke culture of "me" thing (no one knows more about anything than "me", I know more than they do and they're just silly).
  
• I'll work from the assumption some of you don't attend a sane church
  
• (this is in a normal partnership, not one where the person cheating was abused for five years or any other "ifs" someone might want to throw at this example).
  
• That has deteriorated as many Americans don't want to identify with [i]Americana[i], and instead want America to look more like Western Europe.
  
• There are a lot of if's, and's and but's to everything that used to be considered right and wrong by the majority. It's no longer a majority, more like 50/50.

counter point

Telling someone you HAVE to believe in what is in direct contrast with your beliefs ... and further, you're not allowed to have your beliefs involved in public life ... is oppressive.

point

And in a country where 90% of the people believe in God to have someone committed to taking that OUT of public discourse is crazy.

counter point

a) I personally don't care about religion in public office but I see how it's important to others and b) even if I did, I'd take 9 out of 10 if the other guy was very religious but had no clue how to run the country.

point

marriage was never designed for gay people ... people are making amendments, laws and court rulings to change or adjust the definiton of marriage so gay people can get married ... basically because of guilt that everyone is the same (read: I said the same, not equal, there's a difference) when we're not.

counter point

Marriage was established as a societal stabalizer to encourage building strong families

summary

Your presentation tells me you might want to listen to someone about something, because you come off a wholly ignorant

[FlashLackey]

Should we strive for any less than universal good will?

But its really not about smarts, its about love of those who are different.

Is that a principle you are exercizing when you denigrate other peoples beliefs by calling their Gods "cloud wizards?"

Doesn't seem like there's much good will there.

I know you're not talking about unity under secular humanism in all of its red glory. But, it sure sounds a lot like the principle that was sold by the Communists of Stalins Soviet Union. It didn't appear that the unbridled human heart won the day there with as many or more innocent people being slaughtered as those under Nazi Germany.

I don't say any of this as a slam on your religion or "christians in general", but only to clear up a common misconception.

I think the misconception is on your side here.

There is no such thing as an article or clause of "separation of church and state." There is something called an "establishment clause" that prevents the government from establishing a state church. There is, throughout the literature of our oldest documents, references to God. It is historical fact that the majority of US citizens have been from the beginning and still are Christians. Whatever form of religious and spiritual beliefs the founding fathers had in regard to being deists or whatever has nothing to do with whether or not the principles and values inherent to Judeo-Christian beliefs were the basis for the societies values, in mind, as the country was being founded. Not only is it perfectly clear that the values of early American society were Christian, that fact is directly referenced by the founding fathers in many places of their writing and speeches in the positive.

But, I have to love the revisionist attempt to minimize the role that Christianity has always played in the United States by pointing to some ambiguous language in a treaty whose purpose was to control pirates. For every "pirate treaty" reference, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of how/why/what influence Christianity had in shaping the country and society that we are now familiar with.

The purpose of the establishment clause was to ensure that the government would always be inclusive to all religions (or lack of) unlike the governments early Americans had fled in order to freely practice their religion. It was not there to distance the government from representing any particular set of values, which (as athiests in this thread have pointed out), whether a person has a religious basis for them or not, can be practiced in action.

it's been fun matching world views with you guys today. thanks for boxing match.

Thanks for your input. I think you make a lot of excellent points.

[FlashLackey]

PS: It's not even remotely accurate that the founding fathers were deists rather than Christians anyway. A couple of them were deists. But, the vast majority of them were Christians.

[jAQUAN]

Is that a principle you are exercizing when you denigrate other peoples beliefs by calling their Gods "cloud wizards?"

You bet it is. A quote from Voltaire comes to mind.

I may not speak for others here but lengthy statements leave too much up to interpretation. My stance is not; Christian beliefs baaaad, scientific law goood. I just think we would still have the goals of love, understanding, charity, monogamy, prosperity, peace, opportunity, comfort, safety and happiness without organized religion because simply rallying against those things are universally illogical. The pain of heartbreak, fatigue, loneliness, hunger and desire are all the natural law humans needs.

[Loyal Rogue]

You're confusing Judeo-Christian philosophy with Christianity.
- - -
Are you saying Western civilization is not based on Judeo-Christian philosophy?

No, I'm not, and Yes, I am.

Human morals and values preceded, and are independent of religion and religious philosophies.
Religious philosophies are based on the basic human values, morals, and ethics that allowed early man to separate himself from the animals and begin the basis of tribal society.

If we were to incorrectly view it as you, and many other religious people do, then we would have to assume that without religion or before religion, people didn't know that stealing, murder, or hurting others was a bad thing, or that they had any concept of good and bad in the first place.

This is a flawed belief based on an assumption that people are inherently evil and need the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of an eternal reward to get them to fight against their evil (sinful) nature and do good.
If there was even a shred of truth to that then man would have never survived long enough to develop a religion, let alone a tribe or society.

I don't think Judeo-Christian philiosophy or Western cultures have a monopoly on those.

Bingo.

[jAQUAN]

Well said.
I think the core message for this thread is that it angers us that the baseless illegal war our "leaders" have sent the bravest of us to die for could be defended as the will of some make believe force.

[admedia]

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

[Loyal Rogue]

Is that a principle you are exercizing when you denigrate other peoples beliefs by calling their Gods "cloud wizards?"

And do you give equal weight and respect to others who believe in fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, and other mythical beings, spirits, or gods/goddesses?

I think the misconception is on your side here.

Sorry, FL.
The revisionists are the ones that created the misconception that you are currently laboring under.
Please see the exact verbiage from the Treaty of Tripoli I posted earlier.
There could not be a more clear example of what this country was NOT founded upon.

[villain2]

why debate the guy when he's his own best opponent?

Dear Lord,

The first part is full of sarcasm
My beliefs for myself are different than what other people believe and I understand and respect them ... which is my whole point since you seem to have missed it.

This convo has been about me filling in the view points that are misquoted and misunderstood. My personal views are different from what I think the public needs to make as policy (ie. I don't care about gay marriage personally but understand why it's an issue for the public at large).

Get it? Probably not, which is funny because I thought you guys make a point that your personal beliefs for yourself can be one thing but what's right for the public at large might be different.

[villain2]

No, I'm not, and Yes, I am.

Human morals and values preceded, and are independent of religion and religious philosophies.
Religious philosophies are based on the basic human values, morals, and ethics that allowed early man to separate himself from the animals and begin the basis of tribal society.

If we were to incorrectly view it as you, and many other religious people do, then we would have to assume that without religion or before religion, people didn't know that stealing, murder, or hurting others was a bad thing, or that they had any concept of good and bad in the first place.

This is a flawed belief based on an assumption that people are inherently evil and need the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of an eternal reward to get them to fight against their evil (sinful) nature and do good.
If there was even a shred of truth to that then man would have never survived long enough to develop a religion, let alone a tribe or society

Sad.

Did anyone say that before religion there were no morals? No. You're stretching to make a slam against something you don't like ... again.

As for the flawed belief based on an assumption that people are inherently evil ... again, another stretch. People are inherently selfish which can easily be the seeds of evil.

It's simply ignorant to imply that man does not have a sinful nature and say we would have never had tribes or society ... that's not the measure of negative behavior ... have you missed the oceans of bloodshed through human history from feudal Japan to Greek and Roman times, from Hannibal to Ghengis Khan, from Hitler to Hussein, from the American Revolution to the Civil War, from the dark ages to the salem witch hunts?

Man either through or in absence of religion has committed atrocities throughout our history to this day. Your logic is flawed and not supported by history. Wonder what would happen if some people actually a) understood what Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity actually taught and b) tried to follow it instead of perverting it or shunning it outright.

[gerbick]

Seriously. Why in the **** are people bringing in Ghenghis Khan and Hitler in a discussion about vice presidency and their morals and how, quite honestly, despite being human, full of faults, these people are not living up to standards that I hold most people to.

And before any of you decide to tear apart whatever I just said, list some obscure dissertation about the Hammurabi Laws and their importance in today's society, the 10 Commandments and how you truly believe that Bush or Palin or Obama are really/really not Christians... I'm giving my very direct opinion.

And honestly, don't give two ****s if you like it or not. I'm allowed, I'll vote the way I wish and what you masturbatory circular discussion ****s are doing now is just side-stepping the one thing that's important. You are able to have an opinion because your country has allowed it to continue. You are able to discuss politics instead of finding out that you will have a new president/dictator for life without having a voice.

And the fact that people are talking now about something - seriously dawg... Hitler (he was not religious to begin with)... ****ing Hitler!?

This whole discussion has become flawed and weak. Time to refocus. Or continue *****ing.

I'm still paying attention to what's important.

[villain2]

The reason we're having this discussion is because there was, in my opinion, a very lopsided dialogue going on where people who like or are like Sarah Palin were being slighted, and unfairly so. You can debate their policies but to insist that people from the midwest, the south, who like the 2nd amendment and/or who believe in Jesus Christ are beneath you ... and to talk about their views as if they should be irrelevant ... was quite annoying.

That spun off into a debate on philosophy, religion, the origins of American law and the difference between personal belief and public policy.

But yes, back to the topic ... what was it again?

[gerbick]

I think you're wrong in how you interpreted things.

I was talking about the midwest and south because that's where this ideal of religion is the first thing - race and gender are a close second perhaps - is based on true and actual voting patterns from the last two elections. Go ahead, cross check the red states and the "god vote"... it starts in NC, swings down to Georgia, out to Texas, all through the Tennessee-Ohio Valley (aka Tornado Alley) and then stops at Colorado. In fact, what's odd - I just noticed this today... all of those states, save Texas and Florida and Atlanta, Georgia... those states are not known for larger cities.

But they are known as the industrial, ex-textile, and bible-belts. It has nothing else to do with anything else really. Dragging in oddly stated comments about 2nd Amendments shows your attack vector all too easily.

Look at the stats. I'll wait. They match up with almost Iowa being the only difference I think.

[Frets]

Villan Palin isn't being slighted, she is being vetted.

Private beliefs are one thing. Public action in relation to those belief's are quite another. There is nothing wrong and everything right about knowing how a candidate is going to react to a given circumstance.


GW is against stem cell research. So much so that the U.S. may never catch up to the research done around the rest of the world.
Imagine a candidate that didn't believe in blood transfusions. Think seriously about what would happen if the government outlawed blood transfusions.

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions.
Are you willing to die for the belief of a JW? Are you willing to lose a loved one?
What if Palin, McCain, Obama or Biden were JW's

It's important to know as much about the track record of the candidate as well as the beliefs if you are going to make a choice (voting) that will affect your and everyone elses life.

[FlashLackey]

And do you give equal weight and respect to others who believe in fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, and other mythical beings, spirits, or gods/goddesses?

If it is their sincere belief, I respect their right to do so. But, I do not always give equal weight personally. That's why we have a representational government.

Where did you get the idea that I was saying that everyone must give equal weight to all beliefs?

Sorry, FL.
The revisionists are the ones that created the misconception that you are currently laboring under.
Please see the exact verbiage from the Treaty of Tripoli I posted earlier.
There could not be a more clear example of what this country was NOT founded upon.

The treaty states that the Government of the United States of America is not founded on the Christian religion (not the same as values). That only means that this is not a theocracy. It wouldn't really make much sense to have an establishment clause meant to ensure freedom of religion and then assert at the same time that Christianity is the national religion.

What I and villain2 have stated accurately is that this country was founded on Christian values. Almost all of the founding fathers were Christian. Almost all Americans were Christian. The impetus for the first Americans to come here in the first place was to be able to freely practice their form of Christianity. Many of the founding fathers referred directly to Christianity in their writings in a positive fashion. Even the ones that had issues with the divinity of Christ or organized religions still attributed their values to being Christian. Nearly all of the Americans who had any hand in applying their values to found this country had Christian values.

Here are a few quotes by prominent early Americans:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

"[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind." -Benjamin Rush

"[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence." -Noah Webster

"[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God." -Gouverneur Morris

"[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind." -Fisher Ames

"The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts." -John Jay

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." -James Wilson

[gerbick]

Here's a sincere question that... well, somebody asked me and I had no answer.

What do you do when two people claim to be Christians, yet their beliefs are different enough from their actions and each other that they're entirely what you'd consider questionable Christian behavior?

So... in essence, you have two people claiming to be the same, broad thing, but one is nigh-fanatical and the other is nigh-lax. Yet, they're both Christian. And oppose what you personally believe?

And what about decisions made by Christians that affect non-Christians? Then what?

[FlashLackey]

Human morals and values preceded, and are independent of religion and religious philosophies.
Religious philosophies are based on the basic human values, morals, and ethics that allowed early man to separate himself from the animals and begin the basis of tribal society.

If we were to incorrectly view it as you, and many other religious people do, then we would have to assume that without religion or before religion, people didn't know that stealing, murder, or hurting others was a bad thing, or that they had any concept of good and bad in the first place.

This is a flawed belief based on an assumption that people are inherently evil and need the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of an eternal reward to get them to fight against their evil (sinful) nature and do good.
If there was even a shred of truth to that then man would have never survived long enough to develop a religion, let alone a tribe or society.

lol. I thought you said that you had personal experience in Christian religions?

I pointed this out to jAQUAN just the other day. Perhaps it is different in some religions that I'm not familiar with. But, it is not a Christian belief that the purpose and reason for people to do good or avoid bad is to go to heaven [as reward] or avoid hell [as punishment]. What you are describing is actually right in line with Christian teaching straight from the bible. Before organized religion existed, God made humans different than animals. The teachings of Christ are a revelation of what specifically those differences are, what the form of good is, as made from the beginning by God. The point is to recognize and pursue what is good and deny what is bad (and I think most people will admit that they have experienced both desires).

You make it sound like people were living peacefully and treating each other "good" just by what is in their hearts or because they didn't want anyone to experience pain before there was organized religion. Historical evidence shows this to be far from the truth. Watching people being eaten by lions was a popular form of entertainment during the time of Jesus. There are modern examples of atheist nations gone awry as well. As I already pointed out, The Soviet Union, officially atheist, has one of the bloodiest histories of any nation ever seen by man. And they aren't the only example. The Khmer Rouge was another wonderful example of what secular unity looks like.

As Benjamin Franklin put it, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?"

[FlashLackey]

What do you do when two people claim to be Christians, yet their beliefs are different enough from their actions and each other that they're entirely what you'd consider questionable Christian behavior?

I'm not sure I understand exactly. Do you mean what do you do if you are a Christian and you disagree with another person who also calls themselves a Christian?

And what about decisions made by Christians that affect non-Christians? Then what?

What types of decisions? Legal or legislative?

[gerbick]

Do you agree with the "jesus camp" type of Christian? Do you agree with the snakes handler type of Christian? Let's start there.

Legislative decisions. Stem cell research has already been brought up... let's start there.

[FlashLackey]

No. I don't agree with the types of Christians you describe. I respect their right to worship and representation. But, I don't personally subscribe to their set of beliefs.

Legislative decisions occur based on representation. If a group disagrees with legislation, they should seek the legal means of getting someone else elected to represent them. The constitution makes no condition that legislation must have either no basis or a basis in religion. It's up to the people to elect leaders who legislate according to their beliefs and values. [The only exception is if/when legislation violates a persons civil rights. Freedom from living with legislation made based on religion is not a civil right.]