Christianity in the public sector, politics, and government - Page 3

imind · 09-29-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Do you need a link to history?

absolutely! you think it writes itself? or that its some tangible, irrefutable entity given from on high?

ibbiasedwebsite

what would convince you that it was? would the fact that one its founder and president has repeatedly been called out for lying?

wallbuilders shoddy workmanship

david barton's distorted history
more barton lies
more nonsense from wallbuilders in general

lew · 09-29-2006, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by imind

absolutely! you think it writes itself? or that its some tangible, irrefutable entity given from on high?

what would convince you that it was? would the fact that one its founder and president has repeatedly been called out for lying?

wallbuilders shoddy workmanship

david barton's distorted history
more barton lies
more nonsense from wallbuilders in general

You've got to be shitting me.

Some tripod sites?

And one Christian site that is also biased?

Wallbuilders has a bias. But it's not like they sat there and made that complete article up, out of thin air.

imind · 09-29-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by lew

You've got to be shitting me.

Some tripod sites?

And one Christian site that is also biased?

Wallbuilders has a bias. But it's not like they sat there and made that complete article up, out of thin air.

who the fuck cares who is hosting the information?

Meanwhile, a federal court ruled recently that Barton's materials are inappropriate for use in public schools. The case was brought by Lisa Herdahl, an Ecru, Miss., mother whose objection to official prayers at the local public school has captured national headlines. A less-noticed part of her lawsuit challenges a class at the school known as "A Biblical History of the Middle East."

facts are facts, regardless of what website is hosting them. did you even read them? barton admitted that he fudged the facts.

even some christians don't like him...
and others

lew · 09-29-2006, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by imind

who the fuck cares who is hosting the information?

facts are facts, regardless of what website is hosting them. did you even read them? barton admitted that he fudged the facts.

even some christians don't like him...
and others

Baptists are for complete separation of church and state. So, yeah they'd be baised against him.

But please, by all means, continue on with your ad hominem attack.

imind · 09-30-2006, 01:08 PM

providing documented evidence of an historian repeatedly filling history with events, quotations, court rulings that didn't happen != ad hom attack.

lew · 09-30-2006, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by imind

providing documented evidence of an historian repeatedly filling history with events, quotations, court rulings that didn't happen != ad hom attack.

Ok. Well when you can provide proof that he is making that specific shit up that I posted, we'll talk.

imind · 10-01-2006, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Ok. Well when you can provide proof that he is making that specific shit up that I posted, we'll talk.

i never said he was making that up, you wanted proof that he's a hack, and i gave it to you.

what was that supposed to prove again? that although the treaty declared that the US was not a christian country, it actually is because a founder or two said so? and a general? clever arguement, but the question still remains. if they were so intent on christianity, they would have included at least a passing mention somewhere in the books, no? that is a rhetorical question, because we all know they did not.

so, these guys, in this treaty, claimed they weren't a christian country, but what, had their fingers crossed behind their backs? odd behavior for christians, no?

did i miss something else from what you wrote?

lew · 10-01-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by imind

i never said he was making that up, you wanted proof that he's a hack, and i gave it to you.

what was that supposed to prove again? that although the treaty declared that the US was not a christian country, it actually is because a founder or two said so? and a general? clever arguement, but the question still remains. if they were so intent on christianity, they would have included at least a passing mention somewhere in the books, no? that is a rhetorical question, because we all know they did not.

so, these guys, in this treaty, claimed they weren't a christian country, but what, had their fingers crossed behind their backs? odd behavior for christians, no?

did i miss something else from what you wrote?

I wanted proof that he was a hack? I must have missed where I posted that, please link it for me.

What is with you people? Holy fuck, do you ever study anything in context? Of course America wasn't a Christian nation - compared to Christian Europe! But compared to atheist Communist Russia, America was certainly Christian. What that treaty was saying was that America was not a country ruled by religious leaders - like the Muslim world was and like Christian Europe was. But that doesn't mean that Christianity had no place in American politics or government. All that me and most people mean by saying "America was founded as a Christian nation" is that the majority of our founding fathers were Christians and that their faith had an effect on our government. That doesn't mean that we believe it was founded to be a theocracy. We don't. And we don't even want it as that. I hate theocracy as much as democracy.

THAT is what that treaty is saying. America was not ruled by religious leaders, specifically the Pope. It was not saying that Christianity had no influence on America - which it did.

imind · 10-06-2006, 12:52 PM

I wanted proof that he was a hack? I must have missed where I posted that, please link it for me.

inferred from...

ibbiasedwebsite

All that me and most people mean by saying "America was founded as a Christian nation" is that the majority of our founding fathers were Christians and that their faith had an effect on our government.

i guess that we simply disagree with what it means to be 'founded as a christian nation', and i must admit i find great fault in your definition.

one would think that if we could define a nation as being 'x religion' nation, we would find laws derived specifically from said religion, or at least a passing mention of that religion in its defining documents.

its interesting to note, though, and this furthers your arguement not mine. i was going to use israel as an example, as i would define her as a jewish state. yet no laws exist specifically from judaism, at least as far as i can tell. did you know that they have yet to write a consitution? (rhetorical question)

an islamic state, however, is just that. a state with laws derived directly from the quran.

anywho...

KatKanPlay · 10-07-2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I hate theocracy as much as democracy.

MInd elaborating abit?

Dumpy Dooby · 10-07-2006, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

MInd elaborating abit?

Pure democracy doesn't protect the rights of the minority.

America is a democracy, but not in the traditional sense. We're a republic, which is a type of democracy; we elect representatives, and they take care of legislation. Specifically, though, we are a constitutional republic (I reckon the distinction is apparent).

KatKanPlay · 10-07-2006, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Pure democracy doesn't protect the rights of the minority.

America is a democracy, but not in the traditional sense. We're a republic, which is a type of democracy; we elect representatives, and they take care of legislation. Specifically, though, we are a constitutional republic (I reckon the distinction is apparent).

If that tells me why lew said he hated theocracy as much as he hated democracy, then I still dont get it.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-08-2006, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

If that tells me why lew said he hated theocracy as much as he hated democracy, then I still dont get it.

Theocracies and democracies (in the traditional sense of the word) are both oppressive.

6SpeedTA95 · 10-08-2006, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Pure democracy doesn't protect the rights of the minority.

America is a democracy, but not in the traditional sense. We're a republic, which is a type of democracy; we elect representatives, and they take care of legislation. Specifically, though, we are a constitutional republic (I reckon the distinction is apparent).

We're a representative republic not really a democracy. You're exactly right about democracy dumping on the rights of the minority.

lew · 10-08-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

MInd elaborating abit?

Well, I favor anarchism.

But if we are to have a government, a republic is a much better government than a democracy. Most, if not all, of the founding fathers hated democracy. It is an oppressive regime where 51% of the population can tell the other 49% what to do.

KatKanPlay · 10-08-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Well, I favor anarchism.

But if we are to have a government, a republic is a much better government than a democracy. Most, if not all, of the founding fathers hated democracy. It is an oppressive regime where 51% of the population can tell the other 49% what to do.

Okay, now I understand. So how would a country our size accomplish that?

KatKanPlay · 10-08-2006, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Theocracies and democracies (in the traditional sense of the word) are both oppressive.

Thank you that makes sense. Funny thing about getting older, as you do you realize more and more how much you dont know.

Do not take that as an admission to getting old.

KatKanPlay · 10-08-2006, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

We're a representative republic not really a democracy. You're exactly right about democracy dumping on the rights of the minority.

Great, now I have to rethink my position on this whole democracy thingy.

UGH, and I really need to get some laundry done today.....