2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[freethrowtommy]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

i don't know about you, but my morals came from not wanting to be a scumbag. that's universal across all religions.


and we are separating from choosing one religion to follow, therefore alienating a large swath of citizens.

Nailed it!

I don't need a book and fear of eternal damnation to be a decent person.

[zachtruitt]

I went to church for 16 years and have read the Bible a few times. The Bible says that God has human emotions somehow and was jealous/petty and delighted in destruction of other gods and their believers. Is that not accurate? Just pointing out the "facts".

[TheHeel]

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by zachtruitt

I went to church for 16 years and have read the Bible a few times. The Bible says that God has human emotions somehow and was jealous/petty and delighted in destruction of other gods and their believers. Is that not accurate? Just pointing out the "facts".

There is a big difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Christian is dervived from Christ and the New Testament, which is what I am talking about. Most bible religions follow the New Testament teachings. Again, this is my point of view and again any stories from the Old Testament or even the New Testament doesn't change the teachings in the Quran.

[zachtruitt]

So you can pick the parts of the "word of God" to follow and go from there? Seems like that can happen with Islam as well.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by zachtruitt

So you can pick the parts of the "word of God" to follow and go from there? Seems like that can happen with Islam as well.

If you want to argue that all these religions are bad I guess you can make that point if you want?

[timber09]

You may be able to pick and choose and I truly believe that most Christians take the better messages of the Bible with them however the same is true with every religion. And every religion has fundamentalists that believe the letter of the law as it has been written.

[zachtruitt]

No, I'm saying that anyone can take any piece of a religion and become a fanatic about it. Religious teachings contradict each other all the time. One is good and the other becomes bad. It's been happening for thousands of years. The emperor has no clothes.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by zachtruitt

No, I'm saying that anyone can take any piece of a religion and become a fanatic about it. Religious teachings contradict each other all the time. One is good and the other becomes bad. It's been happening for thousands of years. The emperor has no clothes.

I personally haven't met anyone or heard of anyone who reenects Old Testament stories to make them personal and to act out in violence in modern society because of them. All of the terrorist attacks in America and around the world have been from the teachings of the Quran. To me this is a big difference.

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by tke1600

There is a big difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Christian is dervived from Christ and the New Testament, which is what I am talking about. Most bible religions follow the New Testament teachings. Again, this is my point of view and again any stories from the Old Testament or even the New Testament doesn't change the teachings in the Quran.

aren't hte 10 commandments in the OT?

[timber09]

Originally Posted by tke1600

I personally haven't met anyone or heard of anyone who reenects Old Testament stories to make them personal and to act out in violence in modern society because of them. All of the terrorist attacks in America and around the world have been from the teachings of the Quran. To me this is a big difference.

How about this guy

For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack - The New York Times

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

aren't hte 10 commandments in the OT?

Yes and I'd use #6 to help prove my point in the differences.

[zachtruitt]

Right. A small % of religious fanatics are trying to hurt others as has been happening since the beginning of civilization. I would say 99% of Christians aren't violent, bombers of Planned Parenthood/OKC bulidings. I would say the same of Muslims. Remember, there are over a billion of each.

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by tke1600

Yes and I'd use #6 to help prove my point in the differences.

ok, but you can't say that most bible religions follow the NT when the commandments are in the OT.

it really is just things being cherrypicked.

[Panthersfans]

Originally Posted by irfuji

Ok, I'm wrong. I can admit it. The constitution doesn't say that.

The Supreme Court has consistently and constantly reaffirmed that there is to be a separation between Church and State.

They derive that conclusion via an interpretation of the Constitution.

So yes, I was wrong to say it says clearly in the Constitution when in reality the Constitution implies it and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that there is to be separation between Church and State.

Kudos irfuji, you are getting closer but still only partially correct. The constitution itself does not imply there is to be a separation of church and state. It simply decides that congress has no right to establish a religion for the people of the United States and cannot prohibit the people from exercising their choice of religion.

The phrase separation of church and state was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in the early 1800s. Thomas was elected president in February of 1801. Later that year, in October of 1801, Jefferson recieved a letter from the Danbury Baptist (Virginia). Here is a large portion of the letter that pertains to the subject with bolder matter of Church/State:



" Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty : that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ. "

So to make this simple, the Baptists of Danbury wrote the president in hopes of clarity on the subject of religious liberty because in their opinions, it might not be clear enough that if the wrong person were to gain office, they might seek to regulate religious expression based on the assumption that the freedom of religion was given to the people by government, instead of these being inalienable right we have been given by our creator. If you study any on the history of religion prior to the formation of the US it is simple to understand why these people needed clarification before they recieved persecution on the matter.


Ok, now, the Danbury Baptists recieved a letter in return from President Thomas Jefferson, here again the content at hand:


" Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions , contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties "

Again to simplify Jefferson absolutely agreed with the Danbury Baptists that the freedom to worship lied between man and God, and that it is not the gov'ts place to determine a persons religion for them, assuring them NOT that we are free from religion, but that we are free of Religion to choose and worship as we see fit.

Therefore quite simply the "wall of separation" that is being tossed around in this discussion and country is not a wall that stops a person from religion, the "wall is to stop the gov't from deciding for us what religion we can have.

Im sorry to tell you you have been duped by politicians, the media, lawyers and religion haters that want you to believe that the separation of church and state was the brave, valiant act by the gov't to stop those mean ol' Christians from interjecting their values into the gov't, but in reality it was simply to make sure the gov't can't force you to practice the religion they decided would work for you.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

ok, but you can't say that most bible religions follow the NT when the commandments are in the OT.

it really is just things being cherrypicked.

I've already pointed out how the Old Testament has violent stories and do not interpret them to act out in violence today as a follower. The reason we are even having this discussion is more and more people are seeing the negative effects of what the Quran wants people to do in modern times with its teachings. There is a lot more than just violence against others but also very negative things about women and wives that you can read up on if you want to.

[Panthersfans]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

ok, but you can't say that most bible religions follow the NT when the commandments are in the OT.

it really is just things being cherrypicked.

Clarka3, we live in the New Testament age, and the Old Testament is over. The Bible clearly tells the church today to take its doctrines for faith and practice from the New Testament. (These are the books Apostle John wrote to the churches in the area) This is the reason I mentioned Jews in an earlier comment. The Old Testament was for the children of Israel, not the current church so if you want to keep quoting commandments and Old Testament scripture, you are going to have to go back in time and argue with them. This is not us.

[cruiserdaddy7]

This stuff is getting way off the topic of politics. You guys aren't even relating your comments to Candidates anymore.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by cruiserdaddy7

This stuff is getting way off the topic of politics. You guys aren't even relating your comments to Candidates anymore.

It has a lot to do with border security and immigration.

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by tke1600

It has a lot to do with border security and immigration.

you would think the christians would want the mexicans here. They are very christian.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by timber09

How about this guy

For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack - The New York Times

My very first post on this pointed out the difference between people doing bad things and being part of a religion and those who do bad things in the name of a religion. This guy, from 23 years ago, falls into this first category based on that article.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

you would think the christians would want the mexicans here. They are very christian.

Border security pertaining to all illegal immigration from all backgrounds, and the difference between the immigration policies that Clinton and Trump have proposed.

[cruiserdaddy7]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

you would think the christians would want the mexicans here. They are very christian.

Has anyone said they have an issue with Mexicans being here? It's Mexicans being here ILLEGALLY that people have an issue with.

I understand it's helps your narrative to say it the other way.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

you would think the christians would want the mexicans here. They are very christian.

I didn't know that some could be "very" Christian. I guess I have missed something...

[trixstar]

I can feel the conservatives hatred

Taco Trucks Are Actually Registering Citizens to Vote in Texas and Arizona