General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
bosaxi
 
Ron Paul is an atheist. I mean would a creationist wacko name his son after Ayn Rand?

This is just one area where he wiggles. The creator is the guaranteer of our rights. Not government. It says so in our constitution. So being a follower of the constitution, logically, he has to believe in some sort of creator.

If you strictly believe in evolution, then you believe we came from nothing, and then turn into nothing after we die. A creator gives us a purpose, that purpose being to strive for virtue and excellence. The only way a free society can survive, is if its citizens voluntarily strive for virtue and excellence.

here's an interesting video on americanism part 1 of 4 -
+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

I don't believe in a creator but I can understand his thinking.
Old 12-28-2007, 05:43 AM bosaxi is offline  
Reply With Quote
#61  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

möbiustrip
 
möbiustrip's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathlete View Post
Well, in the sense that strict observance is not required, you are right. Nonetheless, it's still an important day for many Christians. In the most basic sense, all that is required of christians is to accept Jesus as their lord and savior. So what constitutes christian principles then?
We know them when we see them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enygma View Post
the whole christian principles thing is a way for christians to imply that our nation was founded as a christian nation (false) by saying something that's entirely true. sure, it was founded upon the christian principles of freedom, equality and brotherhood of man. but it doesn't make people not retarded for saying it.
The nation wasn't founded on freedom or equality or brotherhood of man. Heard of slavery and voting rights and savages?

The French invented the three-point slogan during their revolution. We liked it because we were trying to piss off the king of England. He's the reason our government eschewed theocracy: his asshole religious laws made people move here and form states. When their asshole religious laws couldn't coexist, we decided nobody wins.
__________________
I personally believe that there has to be a law that limits the power of the supreme court. -- R@$T@M@N
Old 12-28-2007, 06:45 AM möbiustrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
#62  

1337rider
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cromicus View Post
So ideas like private property, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, equality of men, rejection of monarchy and aristocracy, constitutional republicanism, independent and impartial judiciary, federalism, etc. are all in the Bible? Good luck finding that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337rider
I actually did some research to find support for the idea that this nation was founded on christian ideals, and read some opposing views. I now realize that just because some ideals are shared between christianity and our constitution etc, doesn't mean they necessarily came from christianity. Some ideas arejust so good more than one entity incorporates them!

I did some research and realized I was wrong. I was just saying that some of the principles are common, but not necessarily derived from christianity.

George Washington:
Quote:
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the ible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. . .
Though he talks about devine inspiration, he doesn't say it is specifically christian.
__________________
-06 Silverado 2500 Short bed
-2005 Suzuki SV650s
-1972 Nova
Old 12-28-2007, 06:50 AM 1337rider is offline  
Reply With Quote
#63  

mathlete
I'm the cheapest person on this planet, maybe the universe.
 
mathlete's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosaxi View Post
Ron Paul is an atheist. I mean would a creationist wacko name his son after Ayn Rand?

This is just one area where he wiggles. The creator is the guaranteer of our rights. Not government. It says so in our constitution. So being a follower of the constitution, logically, he has to believe in some sort of creator.

If you strictly believe in evolution, then you believe we came from nothing, and then turn into nothing after we die. A creator gives us a purpose, that purpose being to strive for virtue and excellence. The only way a free society can survive, is if its citizens voluntarily strive for virtue and excellence.

1) The Constitution says nothing about a creator. You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence.

2) Evolution does not say we came from nothing. It makes no claims on the origins of life. That's abiogenesis you're thinking of.

3) I have no idea how you connect belief in a creator to a need to strive for excellence.
__________________
"Sex and physics are a lot alike; they both give practical results but that's not why we do them."
Richard Feynman - physicist, bongo drummer

4/7/2009 mathlete became Dr. mathlete
Old 12-28-2007, 07:16 AM mathlete is offline  
Reply With Quote
#64  

cromicus
I act tough on genmay, but real life im a pussy
 
cromicus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337rider View Post
I did some research and realized I was wrong. I was just saying that some of the principles are common, but not necessarily derived from christianity.
No, I still dispute that there are any common principles.
__________________
you shall see hail fall from a clear sky
Old 12-28-2007, 09:08 AM cromicus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#65  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cromicus View Post
No, I still dispute that there are any common principles.

Are you serious? A lot of the law has a lot in common with Judeo-Christian principles, for one thing, particularly at the time the US was formed. To argue that there are no commonalities between the founding of the United States and Christianity would be false. To argue the United States was founded directly on Christian principles would be equally false.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 12-28-2007, 09:32 AM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#66  

cromicus
I act tough on genmay, but real life im a pussy
 
cromicus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
To argue that there are no commonalities between the founding of the United States and Christianity would be false.
Yes, I understand the contention. What is the argument?
__________________
you shall see hail fall from a clear sky
Old 12-28-2007, 09:42 AM cromicus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#67  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
Are you serious? A lot of the law has a lot in common with Judeo-Christian principles, for one thing, particularly at the time the US was formed. To argue that there are no commonalities between the founding of the United States and Christianity would be false. To argue the United States was founded directly on Christian principles would be equally false.

A lot of the law has a lot in common with many religions. There is nothing in Judeo-Christian philosophy that filtered into our written laws that can't be found in a variety of other religions. The rare exceptions are blue laws but none of those are nation-wide.

No doubt the founders had some of their religious principles in mind when they came up with this shit but none of it that actually made it into law was exclusive to christianity.
Old 12-28-2007, 09:44 AM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#68  

Allnighte
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Night View Post
Paul is not a religious nutjob, you have him confused with Huckabee.

good point.

even if ron paul still thinks evolution is fucking bonkers, the difference between huckabee and ron paul is that ron paul is clearly capable of separating his OWN beliefs from what an ELECTED OFFICIAL should do in the united states. huckabee is the guy you go to when you want christianity in your goverment.

i know it may sound hard to believe, but it is completely possible for someone to remove their own religious beliefs when deciding what's best for your country.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Jones_III

Quote:
Jones was assigned to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District bench trial, the first direct challenge brought in the federal courts against a school district that mandated the teaching of intelligent design. He was praised by Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania Governor and former head of the Department of Homeland Security, who said that "I can't imagine a better judge presiding over such an emotionally charged issue... he has an inquisitive mind, a penetrating intellect and an incredible sense of humor."[1]

On December 20, 2005, Jones ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional in a 139-page decision.[2]

After the ruling was handed down, some pundits immediately attacked it, notably Bill O'Reilly on Fox News accusing Jones of being a fascist and an activist judge. Casey Luskin and Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute, and activist Phyllis Schlafly, have leveled similar charges.[3] Jones also received death threats as a result of which he and his family were given round federal protection.[4]

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League on February 10, 2006 he responded to critics who claimed that he had "stabbed the evangelicals who got him onto the federal bench right in the back"[3] by noting that his duty was to the Constitution and not to special interest groups.[5]

In a November 2006 talk given at Bennington College, Jones again rejected the "activist judge" criticisms and explained the judiciary role and how judges decide cases,

"If you look at public polls in the United States, at any given time a significant percentage of Americans believe that it is acceptable to teach creationism in public high schools. And that gives rise to an assumption on the part of the public that judges should 'get with the program' and make decisions according to the popular will. There's a problem with that....The framers of the Constitution, in their almost infinite wisdom, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will--in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time--but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. That distinction, just like the role of precedent, tends to be lost in the analysis of judges' decisions, including my decision."[1]

and going back to ron paul, is this still the best you can do?
dig up some good dirt, please.
Old 12-28-2007, 09:48 AM Allnighte is offline  
Reply With Quote
#69  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyNavy View Post
A lot of the law has a lot in common with many religions. There is nothing in Judeo-Christian philosophy that filtered into our written laws that can't be found in a variety of other religions. The rare exceptions are blue laws but none of those are nation-wide.

No doubt the founders had some of their religious principles in mind when they came up with this shit but none of it that actually made it into law was exclusive to christianity.

That's what I'm saying. Although it's true that a lot of religions preach common virtues, being European in origin it's of little doubt there were Judeo-Christian influences on law in the United States at the time of it's formation.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 12-28-2007, 11:58 AM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#70  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cromicus View Post
Yes, I understand the contention. What is the argument?

I don't fully understand what you're getting at. You said in this thread there were no common principles between the United States and Christianity, but then earlier you yourself mention things like equality amongst all men, which is a Christian teaching as well as an American value. My point is that you saying you would dispute that there are any common principles would be seriously in error, unless you meant something else by your statement that I didn't pick up on.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 12-28-2007, 12:01 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#71  

cromicus
I act tough on genmay, but real life im a pussy
 
cromicus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
I don't fully understand what you're getting at. You said in this thread there were no common principles between the United States and Christianity, but then earlier you yourself mention things like equality amongst all men, which is a Christian teaching as well as an American value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_values

That's not in there.
__________________
you shall see hail fall from a clear sky
Old 12-28-2007, 12:03 PM cromicus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#72  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
That's what I'm saying. Although it's true that a lot of religions preach common virtues, being European in origin it's of little doubt there were Judeo-Christian influences on law in the United States at the time of it's formation.

But they weren't founded on judeo-christian principles. The fact that some judeo-christian are similar to some of our laws and that they may have had some of those in mind does not, in any way, connect america's laws and values to christians ones.
Old 12-28-2007, 12:06 PM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#73  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
equality amongst all men, which is a Christian teaching
no it's not
Quote:
as well as an American value.
yeah...NOW it is. but it wasn't when America was founded
Quote:
My point is that you saying you would dispute that there are any common principles would be seriously in error, unless you meant something else by your statement that I didn't pick up on.
Just because there are commonalities in the principles doesn't mean....well, jack shit. Who cares? Does it make a difference? No. Not one bit.
Old 12-28-2007, 12:08 PM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#74  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
I wrote this to help convince my friends on facebook and myspace a little while ago. It applies DIRECTLY to this and IMO shoots this whole thread down--

Both your and 's posts were very good ones.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 12-28-2007, 12:46 PM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#75  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:53 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.