• 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!

Republicans: Obama must defend Christian values

Christianity thru the centuries has probably kill more people than all other religions put together so I'd get off that high horse.
You have evidence of this? Where would atheists fit in?

And as for treatment of women....only very very recently has that changed...even our American laws made women subservient...and some STILL do. However just like in Islam, most of those women do so willingly to follow their religion. I feel that in both cases the women are misguided but in the majority of cases on both sides it is done by ignorance and indoctrination, not force.
You have no idea what you are talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c_zppPutQw The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam (rated X) - PopModal Video
 
It is thought that those calling themselves Christians have values based on the teachings of Jesus Christ while those who would call themselves atheist or agnostic would have values which are less clear.

I'd say you're right. Your point being...?

Although Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama both claimed to be Christian I doubt anyone felt they were too serious about it, but their claims were enough to satisfy many voters.

I can't speak for everyone else who voted for either former Pres. Clinton or Pres. Obama, but I didn't vote for either because of their religious faith. Don't get me wrong; I understand that one's faith in many ways shapes his/her moral values, but few voters consider "credibility" when initially deciding on a candidate for public office. That only comes into play when an issue questioning the candidate's morality and/or ethics comes into play. Until such time, most voters are looking at issues that are closer to the vest, as well as, which candidate they think can better lead the country.
 
I haven't seen any evidence of true attempts to stifle free speech, at least none directed specifically at Christians or other religions.
What do you mean by a 'true attempts'?
I'm not aware of any specific "hate speech" laws being introduced into the US.
Though I mentioned the democracies the US First Amendment is a wonderful thing which helps keep free speech free. Every country should have it. Nonetheless there have been attempts.
In January, 2009, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC),[80] a nonprofit organization with a mission to improve the image of American Latinos as portrayed by the media, unveiled a three prong strategy to address the issue of hate speech in media. 1) NHMC filed a petition for inquiry into hate speech with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).[81] The petition urges the Commission to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways in which to counteract its negative impacts. 2) NHMC asked the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to update its 1993 report “The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes”; 3) NHMC collaborated with the UCLA/Chicano Research Study Center (CRSC) to produce groundbreaking research on the subject. “Hate Speech on Commercial Radio, Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study” was also released in January 2009.[82][83]

“Hate Speech on Commercial Radio” categorized hate speech in four different areas.

False facts
Flawed argumentation
Divisive language
Dehumanizing metaphors
In May 2010, NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding on the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age.[84] Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, the comments ask the FCC to examine hate speech in media. In its comments, NHMC reinforces the need for the FCC to act on NHMC’s petition for inquiry on hate speech in media filed in January 2009.
And these are the leaders of tomorrow. Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes
I do know that many Christian nations (as in those that are or have been run by Christian religions) usually have laws against blasphemy, which is a law against speaking against a religion or certain parts of a religion.
You probably mean Islamic nations. I don't know of anyone who has been charged under blasphemy laws in any Christian dominated country.
Now, there are some countries now that are banning hate speech by anyone. But this should also include hate speech against Christians. I don't really agree with such laws, but they are not being used (or shouldn't be) against just Christians. Everyone is subject to those laws.
These laws against free speech, or hate speech laws can be misused greatly. Look at the reasons above for limiting free speech "False facts, Flawed argumentation, Divisive language, Dehumanizing metaphors". We can easily see where this can lead if hate speech laws are ever implemented.
 
What do you mean by a 'true attempts'?
Though I mentioned the democracies the US First Amendment is a wonderful thing which helps keep free speech free. Every country should have it. Nonetheless there have been attempts.
And these are the leaders of tomorrow. Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes
You probably mean Islamic nations. I don't know of anyone who has been charged under blasphemy laws in any Christian dominated country.
These laws against free speech, or hate speech laws can be misused greatly. Look at the reasons above for limiting free speech "False facts, Flawed argumentation, Divisive language, Dehumanizing metaphors". We can easily see where this can lead if hate speech laws are ever implemented.

Campuses have a legitimate interest in ensuring the learning environment is conducive to learning for everyone.

Europe has had blasphemy laws of some sort in place for centuries, if not longer. Now, this is changing or has changed for the most part, but it has only been very recently for this change. We have had blasphemy laws in the past too, although they did not stand up well because of our 1st Amendment. But that doesn't mean they have not existed, particularly in certain states.

Blasphemy law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blasphemy law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:"

These laws, when they were in place in our states, existed explicitly about preventing people from bad-talking Christianity or "God".

Proposal of unconstitutional laws or regulations by outside organizations that stand pretty much no chance of getting put into place, let alone surviving a SCOTUS review are not legitimate attempts.

You cannot show that hate speech laws would be implemented in the US. You are fearmongering.
 
Campuses have a legitimate interest in ensuring the learning environment is conducive to learning for everyone.
And they are learning that free speech can and should be controlled.These are the citizens of tomorrow learning that muzzling someone else's speech is a good and sensible idea. You can bet that 'the offended' will only be from one side, and a powerful one.

Europe has had blasphemy laws of some sort in place for centuries, if not longer. Now, this is changing or has changed for the most part, but it has only been very recently for this change. We have had blasphemy laws in the past too, although they did not stand up well because of our 1st Amendment. But that doesn't mean they have not existed, particularly in certain states. "The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:"

These laws, when they were in place in our states, existed explicitly about preventing people from bad-talking Christianity or "God".

No one enforces these laws. But the free speech laws on campuses are being enforced and you support them
Proposal of unconstitutional laws or regulations by outside organizations that stand pretty much no chance of getting put into place, let alone surviving a SCOTUS review are not legitimate attempts. You cannot show that hate speech laws would be implemented in the US. You are fearmongering.

No one has been enforcing blasphemy laws for decades but why should it matter to you? You said that "Campuses have a legitimate interest in ensuring the learning environment is conducive to learning for everyone". Christians regarded that blasphemy laws promoted the peace as well, and Muslims control speech by threatening murder or riots and they maintain peace that way. So you learn by keeping your opinions to yourself.

Fear-mongering? Many Americans are not afraid because, like you, they feel there should be laws in place to prevent people from being offended. You already have hate speech laws on campuses and you support them.. Now you have "Constitution free zones' that effect almost 2/3 of the population. You have a President who challenges the Constitution and the Supreme Court regularly and now says he will ignore Congress altogether. And many Americans still support him. As Ben F., 'You have a Republic if you can keep it'. Stifling speech may not be a wise way to go about keeping it but 'it's a free country'..
 
Last edited:
And they are learning that free speech can and should be controlled.These are the citizens of tomorrow learning that muzzling someone else's speech is a good and sensible idea. You can bet that 'the offended' will only be from one side, and a powerful one.

No one enforces these laws. But the free speech laws on campuses are being enforced and you support them

No one has been enforcing blasphemy laws for decades but why should it matter to you? You said that "Campuses have a legitimate interest in ensuring the learning environment is conducive to learning for everyone". Christians regarded that blasphemy laws promoted the peace as well, and Muslims control speech by threatening murder or riots and they maintain peace that way. So you learn by keeping your opinions to yourself.

Fear-mongering? Many Americans are not afraid because, like you, they feel there should be laws in place to prevent people from being offended. You already have hate speech laws on campuses and you support them.. Now you have "Constitution free zones' that effect almost 2/3 of the population. You have a President who challenges the Constitution and the Supreme Court regularly and now says he will ignore Congress altogether. And many Americans still support him. As Ben F., 'You have a Republic if you can keep it'. Stifling speech may not be a wise way to go about keeping it but 'it's a free country'..

No. They are learning that there are times and places for speaking your mind to avoid consequences. A college student is not going to be arrested for hate speech. Kicked out of college, quite possibly, just as employees can be fired for hate speech when it goes against that company's rules.

The speech laws on campus are like those in a work place. Do you believe that work places should not be allowed to control what is said at their work places?

It doesn't matter if they enforced or not, they still existed in Christian controlled countries.

Christians were wrong because they were only used to protect words against God or certain religious beliefs from being said, not to promote peace. And campuses do it only in regards to certain places and/or people. They do not hold any criminal sanctions, blasphemy laws do/did.

There is a difference between rules in certain places and laws that cover every place. Do you not understand this? Not all rules are laws. On campus there are rules against hate speech, not laws. Laws against it would mean that the students who violated this would have a criminal record.

And now you are getting into the political partisanship. There have always been people on both sides who attempt to stifle free speech. It is not just those on the left or just those on right. That is why we have some protections in place.
 
You mean countries like Colombia? Mexico? El Salvador? Nicaragua? Venezuela? Guess what all those countries have had within the last 30 years.
Massive poverty under socialist dictate?
 
Massive poverty under socialist dictate?

El Salvador got into a war because the ruling government (a conservative party) was too oppressive.
Colombia's war started because a right wing government started attacking peasant villages.
Mexico was led by a right wing pro-US government for 80+ years (dubbed "The perfect dictatorship")
Nicaragua's war was fueled by a right wing pro-US government which called itself Conservative authoritarian.

... what?
 
El Salvador got into a war because the ruling government (a conservative party) was too oppressive.
Colombia's war started because a right wing government started attacking peasant villages.
Mexico was led by a right wing pro-US government for 80+ years (dubbed "The perfect dictatorship")
Nicaragua's war was fueled by a right wing pro-US government which called itself Conservative authoritarian.

... what?

"Right wing" in other places in the world doesn't mean the same thing as "right wing" here.
 
"Right wing" in other places in the world doesn't mean the same thing as "right wing" here.

Hahahahaha, from the guy who agrees that there is a global left and all leftists are in some sort of cabal is laughable.
 
Hahahahaha, from the guy who agrees that there is a global left and all leftists are in some sort of cabal is laughable.

So you really have no rational response, so you just resort to the same childish tactics....Ok....carry on....I have a party to get ready for....Happy Independence day Hatuey....
 
So you really have no rational response,

No, I'm highlighting your complete ignorance of these governments. THEY WERE BACKED BY THE US. Hell, the reason they were backed by the US government was because they were supposedly carrying out campaigns against leftist groups suspected of being backed by the USSR and Cuba. Are you even serious?
 
El Salvador got into a war because the ruling government (a conservative party) was too oppressive.
Colombia's war started because a right wing government started attacking peasant villages.
Mexico was led by a right wing pro-US government for 80+ years (dubbed "The perfect dictatorship")
Nicaragua's war was fueled by a right wing pro-US government which called itself Conservative authoritarian.

... what?
Psst. Right wing means limited government, individual rights and free markets. The countries you mentioned reflect left wing values of state power and corruption. Sorry.
 
No, I'm highlighting your complete ignorance of these governments. THEY WERE BACKED BY THE US. Hell, the reason they were backed by the US government was because they were supposedly carrying out campaigns against leftist groups suspected of being backed by the USSR and Cuba. Are you even serious?
And now that leftist Obama is in power we are no longer backing those governments?
 
Psst. Right wing means limited government, individual rights and free markets. The countries you mentioned reflect left wing values of state power and corruption. Sorry.

No. I really doesn't:

Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right said:
Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2] typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.[3][4][5][6][7][8]

Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005. p.693, 721

"That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."

Those governments fought tooth and nail to maintain the order of those societies.
 
And now that leftist Obama is in power we are no longer backing those governments?

Considering none of those governments exist any longer, I don't see how we could. See any Somozas running around lately?
 
No. I really doesn't:



Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005. p.693, 721



Those governments fought tooth and nail to maintain the order of those societies.
I see. So any leftist dictator that fights to maintain the power structure he and his thugs have created becomes a right wing dictator. How convenient. And unconvincing.
 
Considering none of those governments exist any longer, I don't see how we could. See any Somozas running around lately?
Cuba and venezuala, left wing or right wing? And what is being discussed here is ideology not whether or not those in political power wish to maintain it or not.
 
Cuba and venezuala, left wing or right wing?

The Cuban government in the 60s was overthrown because of the repressive US-backed tactics of Furgencio Batista's government. The Venezuelans staged various coups trying to overthrown neoconservative governments. Are you even trying to look at this from a global perspective? Do you know anything about these countries?

And what is being discussed here is ideology not whether or not those in political power wish to maintain it or not.

I see. So any leftist dictator that fights to maintain the power structure he and his thugs have created becomes a right wing dictator. How convenient. And unconvincing.

You're not good at this stuff, seeking to maintain power is a descriptive of any government right or left wing government. That is because it is through maintenance of power that you can establish social and economic policies. What is being stated (which is a factual statement) is that right wing governments seek to maintain a system made of tiers (poor, rich, middle class, etc) whereas left wing governments want to maintain a system of economic/social equality. It has nothing to do with small or big government. There are libertarians who want smaller government and yet also believe in a social policy where everyone can have access to basic services. Small and big government are just demands from political parties and depend on the political context.
 
Considering none of those governments exist any longer, I don't see how we could. See any Somozas running around lately?

Today I saw one running to catch a bus in New York.
 
Obama use to go to church all the time. The preacher was a race-baiting nutjob but still. It at least proves he believes in God and is teaching his kids to do the same. Bet that just burns you libs up.
I thought Obama was an extremist atheist communist muslim. You guys can't even keep your false accusations straight without tripping over yourselves.
 
Last edited:
part of the 1st amendment is religious protections. that would include christian values.

What about anti-christian values? The faith in the anti-christ is strong in many parts of the Bible Belt.
 
`
I read someplace in the New Tea Party coloring book version of the US Constitution that presidents must defend Christian values as opposed to the Constitution itself.
`
`

And they thought I was kidding..............
`
`

pnntd7f.jpg
`
 
The Cuban government in the 60s was overthrown because of the repressive US-backed tactics of Furgencio Batista's government. The Venezuelans staged various coups trying to overthrown neoconservative governments. Are you even trying to look at this from a global perspective? Do you know anything about these countries?
By all means, fill me in.





You're not good at this stuff, seeking to maintain power is a descriptive of any government right or left wing government. That is because it is through maintenance of power that you can establish social and economic policies. What is being stated (which is a factual statement) is that right wing governments seek to maintain a system made of tiers (poor, rich, middle class, etc) whereas left wing governments want to maintain a system of economic/social equality. It has nothing to do with small or big government. There are libertarians who want smaller government and yet also believe in a social policy where everyone can have access to basic services. Small and big government are just demands from political parties and depend on the political context.
I used the definition you posted, so if I'm not 'good at this stuff' it would be because you post crap links that make crap points. Just so you know, governments that 'want to maintain a system of economic/social equality' can only do so through the rule by physical force and the trampling of individual rights. Your simplistic world view seems to leave out those who wish a state to respect and defend the rights and liberties of the individual. You seem incapable of recognizing any form of government that doesn't oppress its population to achieve certain state ends. Whether a particular statist is of right or left wing is really irrelevant. Both are statists. Neither preferable to the other in the eyes of those whose political philosophy is centered upon individual rights. To you, what is important is state power and state 'rights'. The idea that such thinking is 'progressive' is laughable. It is as regressive and medieval as a thought can possibly get.
 
Back
Top Bottom