• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ground zero mosque wins key vote

The problem, Vic, is that there are a ton of Christians in the U.S. who would like to mandate old testament law as the law of the land, too.

I quit reading right there. YOU have no clue what you are talking about. Quit watching Bill Mahar.

No CHRISTIAN would want to bring back "old testament law" as Christians follow the NEW TESTAMENT, which... replace pretty much everything in the OLD Testament. Cept the Ten Commandments.

You have a very misguided, and flawed view of Christians, and your "ton of Christians" quantifier says it all.

I love ya Catz, but you are REALLY off base here.
 
I quit reading right there. YOU have no clue what you are talking about. Quit watching Bill Mahar.

No CHRISTIAN would want to bring back "old testament law" as Christians follow the NEW TESTAMENT, which... replace pretty much everything in the OLD Testament. Cept the Ten Commandments.

You have a very misguided, and flawed view of Christians, and your "ton of Christians" quantifier says it all.

I love ya Catz, but you are REALLY off base here.

Bro, I grew up fundamentalist southern baptist. You should investigate the reconstructionist and dominionist movements.

Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While many Christians believe that biblical law is a guide to morality and public ethics, when interpreted in faith, Reconstructionism is unique in advocating that civil law should be derived from and limited by biblical law. For example, they support the recriminalization of acts of abortion and homosexuality, but also oppose confiscatory taxation, conscription, and most aspects of the welfare state. Protection of property and life needs grounding in biblical law, according to Reconstructionism, or the state set free from the restraint of God's law will take what it wishes at a whim. Accordingly, Reconstructionists advocate biblically derived measures of restitution, a definite limit upon the powers of taxation, and a gold standard or equivalent fixed unit for currency.

Christian Reconstructionists describe their view of public ethics by the term, "Theonomy" (the Law of God governs); while their critics tend to label them "Theocratic" (God governs). The notable differences are that "theocracy" is usually thought of as totalitarian and involving no distinction between church and state, while Reconstructionists claim that "theonomy" is broadly libertarian and maintains a distinction of sphere of authority between family, church, and state.[2] For example, enforcement of moral sanctions under theonomy is done by family and church government, and sanctions for moral offenses is outside the authority of civil government (which is limited to criminal matters, courts and national defense). However, in some areas the application of theonomy could increase the authority of the civil government; prominent advocates of Christian Reconstructionism have written that according to their understanding, God's law approves of the death penalty not only for murder, but also for propagators of idolatry[3][4][5], active homosexuals[6], adulterers, practitioners of witchcraft, and blasphemers[7], and perhaps even recalcitrant youths[8] (see the List of capital crimes in the Bible).

PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates

I will freely acknowledge that my view on the numbers is probably different from your own because I live in a hotbed of Christian reconstructionism (the South).
 
It's a free ****ing country! Why the **** should I try to stop some ****ty ass people trying to build a dumbass mosque near ground zero? I don't ****ing care, no skin off my teeth. Let the assholes do what they want and ****ing ignore the mother****ers. What the **** is so hard about that ****? Seriously.

[psst...did I sufficiently violate number 1?]

it's a matter of self respect

by all means, EXPRESS YOURSELF
 
meanwhile, if cordoba is REALLY sincere about its goal of improving relations, it doesn't seem to be working very well
 
Last edited:
I think 97% of evangelical fundamentalists are assholes, too, for what it's worth. Catholics and the mainline protestants don't annoy me nearly as much. Hope that helps.

I'm glad to hear that, and I think I understand where you're coming from. I figured you weren't singling out Islam, and if I am reading you right your feelings stem from an overall belief that religion is generally detrimental to society. Fundamentalism in any religion is a dangerous thing, and it is often difficult to separate religions from their fundamentalist aspects. I think that's a fair point of view, even though I personally disagree with it. That's a whole nother debate.
 
Bro, I grew up fundamentalist southern baptist. You should investigate the reconstructionist and dominionist movements.

Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates

I will freely acknowledge that my view on the numbers is probably different from your own because I live in a hotbed of Christian reconstructionism (the South).

You should post that stuff down in Tin Foil Hat land.

And Texas = The South, fyi.

You probably live in, or are from a small town where the CHURCH rules supreme, I've been to places like that... Cabot Arkansas for example.


Trust me, while Christians tend to lean towards those laws, ideals and morals of a Biblical Nature, I don't know any that want a theocracy. That's just crazy talk.
 
just like moving ksm to manhattan---the political heat is too great, leadership cannot endure

cordoba will be forced to back off, in time

time works against the mosque, just like ksm

and there's a lot of time, way too much time

my side, opposition, grows stronger every day we discuss this, which is why leadership cannot persist

it's cuz the american people overwhelmingly do not agree with you (they're haters)

oh well, party ON!
 
typically, worst of all worlds

no mosque, yet still the same political price to pay as if there were

no gain, all pain

go for it!
 
Trust me, while Christians tend to lean towards those laws, ideals and morals of a Biblical Nature, I don't know any that want a theocracy. That's just crazy talk.

That's reconstructionism. I'm not suggesting that Christians want a THEOCRACY. I'm saying that many Christians believe that laws in the U.S. should be based upon Old Testament laws. That's why so many of them are such big fans of having the Ten Commandments posted in local courthouses. They believe that God's laws supercede those of mankind.

Your post reinforces my point.
 
This thread is like a monkey humping a football now--a whole lot of effort but ain't gettin' anything done.
 
no, maam, it's your imagery

it's gross

but a person's gotta do what a person's gotta do

express YOURSELF!

I'm rather surprised that you don't save your disgruntlement for attempts to undermine the first amendment. :shrug:
 
This thread is like a monkey humping a football now--a whole lot of effort but ain't gettin' anything done.

worst of all worlds

all pain, no gain

this mosque aint never gonna be built

just like ksm, just like cap and trade, just like arizona, just like health care

leadership will never get what they tried for, yet they'll pay just as bad as if they had

better?
 
The problem, Vic, is that there are a ton of Christians in the U.S. who would like to mandate old testament law as the law of the land, too. They would like their religious beliefs to supercede everything else. That's not so different from wanting Sharia Law, when you think abou tit.

eligious persecution."
--William Butler Yeats

I defend the rights of these people to worship according to the dictates of their conscience because, by doing so, I defend my own. And for that matter, yours.

I may thing that religion is wholy stupid (I do), but I would defend the rights of any man to worship as he sees fit.

That's WHY I will defend these people.

And, by doing so, I am defending exactly what it means to be American.

See, I have faith, but not in religions. I have faith in our founding documents and the core principles of this country that have made us the the place on this earth where men are most free. My faith in who and what we are is so strong that whether these people mean us well or ill, I believe that America itself will eventually supercede it and turn it to good. By being true to ourselves, by being true to our founding documents, and not allowing our every decision to be tainted by fear, we show what America really is.

I would encourage you to have faith, as well, in America...in what it means to be American.

The founding fathers were men of character and much of that character was due to their foundation as believers in Christ. They believed that the success of this nation was dependant on divine providence.

I think that given the choice between a Christian society vs. one with no moral or ethical structure vs. one based on any other religion, ...I'll have to give a nod to the Christian society
 
The founding fathers were men of character and much of that character was due to their foundation as believers in Christ. They believed that the success of this nation was dependant on divine providence.

I think that given the choice between a Christian society vs. one with no moral or ethical structure vs. one based on any other religion, ...I'll have to give a nod to the Christian society

This is a strawman argument. But, thanks for playing. The founding fathers never intended for Christian churches to receive preferential treatment under the law, or for Muslims, Jews, or Hindus, not to mention any other religion, to be discriminated against by government agencies.
 
This is a strawman argument. But, thanks for playing. The founding fathers never intended for Christian churches to receive preferential treatment under the law, or for Muslims, Jews, or Hindus, not to mention any other religion, to be discriminated against by government agencies.

Only a few fanatics call for Churches to get "preferential treatment" today, so you dear... fail.
 
This is a strawman argument. But, thanks for playing. The founding fathers never intended for Christian churches to receive preferential treatment under the law, or for Muslims, Jews, or Hindus, not to mention any other religion, to be discriminated against by government agencies.

I think you are too close to the forest to see the trees. First off, the Bible is history, prophecy, poetry, the law, etc. Taken all together, it imparts moral principles and guidance. With that in mind, take a look at the writings of the founding fathers, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and see if it conflicts with the Biblical values or does it incorporate them?
 
Are you even paying attention? Did you read Ric's post that I was responding to?

I was responding to your comment implying that Churches get "preferential treatment" as some sort of Federally mandated affair. I was scoffing at you dear. SCOFFING.
 
The founding fathers were men of character and much of that character was due to their foundation as believers in Christ. They believed that the success of this nation was dependant on divine providence.

I think that given the choice between a Christian society vs. one with no moral or ethical structure vs. one based on any other religion, ...I'll have to give a nod to the Christian society

How did the founding fathers view Muslims?
 
Back
Top Bottom