• 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!

Criticizing Bigotry is not an Attack on Faith

snakestretcher said:
What 'sin'? There's no such thing except in an ancient, irrelevant and anachronistic book. There are no gods either, no miracles, no angels, no devil, no evil spirits. It's all made up nonsense designed to fleece the gullible of common sense and logic, and frighten them. The carrot and stick approach; be a good boy and you'll get to meet god. Misbehave and you'll burn in a fiery pit for eternity. Total rubbish, and yet still, in the 21st century, people actually believe this stuff! Seems the Bronze Age still exists for some.
Click to expand...

This is your opinion. It is nothing but your own biases. That's OK but contending that you know whether God exists is like saying you have knowledge of the entire universe. I'll go out on a limb and say you do not.
 
veritas1 said:
This is your opinion. It is nothing but your own biases. That's OK but contending that you know whether God exists is like saying you have knowledge of the entire universe. I'll go out on a limb and say you do not.
Click to expand...

I don't have knowledge of the entire universe but there's no tooth fairy.
 
veritas1 said:
Bernie Sanders is not a conservative is he? When liberals rail about "white men" we know they mean conservatives although they have an antipathy to white men generally. It's why they're going to lose in 2020. You can't repeatedly disparage white men, especially the "deplorable" types who shop at Walmart, and expect to get their votes.
Click to expand...

Now you're just moving goal posts. And there you go talking about "they" do this, "they" do that as if there is a homogeneous group of "liberals" who all say and act the same. It's gotten boring and stupid at this point.
 
bomberfox said:
Forgetting the 9th i see.
Click to expand...

The 9th only says that other rights may exist outside the ones mentioned. Using it as a cudgel to force the states into certain actions nowhere else enumerated, is a misuse of power. The court could decide that anything is a right and, therefore, covered by the 9th amendment and reserved to the Federal government to enforce. You must remember, also, that the 9th was passed before the Bill of Rights was adopted and was actually looked at as making a BOR unnecessary, as Madison said:

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Notice the red part. Madison is saying that the BOR might imply that rights not mentioned are left in the hands of the government but he is saying they properly reside with the people (ie. their state and local jurisdictions). So, the 9th, as understood by Madison, was to refer these rights not to the Federal government but to the people themselves.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
Now you're just moving goal posts. And there you go talking about "they" do this, "they" do that as if there is a homogeneous group of "liberals" who all say and act the same. It's gotten boring and stupid at this point.
Click to expand...

Maybe all liberals don't say and believe this but the ones who matter do. It's why the powers that be don't really want Biden or Sanders as the nominee. Beto is OK because he's already apologized for being white. Buttigeig is gay so he has a pass, too. This isn't a mystery. Just watch the news.
 
calamity said:
ISIS is not Islam, just like that Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army is not Christianity
Click to expand...
ISIS sure think they are Islam (and their silent supporters think so as well).

BTW did you know how quickly ISIS flags sold out in Amsterdam when they first surfaced?? (and before the govt banned them)
 
veritas1 said:
1. I only care to the extent that I believe marriage has one and only one definition despite what we've made it into.
Click to expand...

That's not a reason. It's an excuse.

2. Where did I say the states ignored anything? I said that powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government were reserved to the states, including the power to regulate marriage, IMO.
Click to expand...

Make up your mind. If it's in the power of the states to regulate marriage, then we should overturn Loving and allow Mississippi et al. to continue to outlaw interracial marriages if they want. And if VA and Mississippi and others with miscegenation laws on the books weren't ignoring or violating equal protection in the Constitution, what would you call it? Are you splitting hairs on terms or do you have a point?

3. Yes, the issue is settled. Unsettling it wasn't my goal. My only point, before the discussion meandered, was that neither individuals nor companies (ie. Chik-Fil-A) should be punished because of moral objections to SSM. That makes personally held beliefs into hate crimes and that is a very slippery slope to be going down.
Click to expand...

Certainly the state shouldn't punish anyone that's obeying the law, but consumers have every right or privilege or whatever to do business with individuals or companies that share their values, and to decline to spend with those who don't, obviously. Frankly Chik-Fil-A is a big favorite around here, and I'm guessing some of it is related to their policy to be closed on Sundays and their stance on SSM. That's fine - it cuts both ways.

And even the state has the prerogative to choose who to do business with at some level, which is why businesses interested in government contracts spend time schmoozing legislators, mayors, governors, etc. If a business is proudly white supremacist, and still complying with the law, there's no obligation for a city with a large black population to reward them with business. They just cannot discriminate and use state powers to punish them for being racists. Same principle with SSM.
 
veritas1 said:
Maybe all liberals don't say and believe this but the ones who matter do. It's why the powers that be don't really want Biden or Sanders as the nominee. Beto is OK because he's already apologized for being white. Buttigeig is gay so he has a pass, too. This isn't a mystery. Just watch the news.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. You're just inventing crap, attributing it to unknown and unnamed liberals, and throwing it against the wall. The white males you say all we liberals can't stand are leading the polls - hated white male Biden is ahead in most polls despite not officially announcing, and hated white male Sanders is #2 - combined they're 40-50% of the polls. O'Rourke, who you say is "OK" for we leftists cause he's apologized for being white was rewarded for that by running in the pack, at 5% or so, or 15-20 points behind the hated white males. It's garbage, divorced from the facts.

RealClearPolitics - 2020 - Latest 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary Polls
 
TrueScotsman said:
The Bible is clear that you shouldn't associate with someone like Pete who claims to be Christian and yet is openly sexually immoral by its standard. The problem is Christianity and the Bible, bigotry is merely the programming of traditional society. If Christians want to try and overcome that, it is an uphill battle, the text clearly sides with the bigots.
Click to expand...

Trump is MORE sexually immoral by the Christian standard. Therefore, Pense is a hypocrite, which Jesus said was the worst thing to be.
 
Michelle Bachmann just said something like this. "The most biblical president."

Republicans are stupid. They hear this stuff and nod their heads. Republicans are ****ing stupid.
 
veritas1 said:
Christianity says to hate the sin and love the sinner. Hating the sin is not bigoted. People actively living the homosexual lifestyle are sinning according to scripture. Christians cannot celebrate sin and so Pence does not do so. If that is bigotry to the left, then so be it.
Click to expand...

Hate and love are actions, not abstract feelings, and sin is an arbitrary judgement. Therefore, that religious platitude is meaningless drivel like most of the bible.
 
Grokmaster said:
Bootyplug thinks he gets to force people to be a part of gay weddings. He's WRONG, as the SCOTUS has established.


He's just BUTTHURT that Pence upheld that....he keeps trying to pretend there's a "feud" between he an Pence...when Pence couldn't care less.


Bootyplug is just desperately trying to DISTRACT from HIS FAILURE AS A MAYOR in SOUTH BEND.
Click to expand...

How gay ARE you, dude, that you have to be such a raving homophobe? It's alright if you have "desires". You and Pense should get a room and work this thing out.
 
calamity said:
Civil Rights for white people to own black people as slaves. :2rofll:
Click to expand...

Slavey was once common in human civilizations. I read somewhere that at times in history about 75% of all humans alive were under some form of slavery. America is not like that any more and not only is America no longer like that but many other nations have also reformed.

I can understand how people can be still upset over what happened under slavery in America 150 and more years ago, but we should stop obsessing over the crimes committed by those in the distant past and do what we can to accommodate everyone in their present situation without forcing anyone to abandon all memories of the past, no matter which political party, race, religion, sect or heritage.
 
veritas1 said:
This is your opinion. It is nothing but your own biases. That's OK but contending that you know whether God exists is like saying you have knowledge of the entire universe. I'll go out on a limb and say you do not.
Click to expand...

No, I don't, but we are at least trying to understand the beginnings of the universe and life on Earth by using science, rather than taking the easy 'god did it because it says so in this 2000 year old book', way out.
 
marke said:
Slavey was once common in human civilizations. I read somewhere that at times in history about 75% of all humans alive were under some form of slavery. America is not like that any more and not only is America no longer like that but many other nations have also reformed.

I can understand how people can be still upset over what happened under slavery in America 150 and more years ago, but we should stop obsessing over the crimes committed by those in the distant past and do what we can to accommodate everyone in their present situation without forcing anyone to abandon all memories of the past, no matter which political party, race, religion, sect or heritage.
Click to expand...

Actually if you read your Bible it is pretty hard to condemn slavery. You really have to twist it to come out against slavery.


"Slavery was established by the decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."
-Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America.

“There is not one verse in the Bible prohibiting slavery, but many instructions proscribing it. It is not, therefore we conclude, immoral.”
- Daniel Johnson, Georgia, 1861

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
-Rev. Richard Furman, the first president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention.
Click to expand...

Maybe as homophobia becomes less acceptable by society, Christians will find similarly clever ways to “properly interpret” their scripture on this issue as well- to make it more socially acceptable. Their cleverness and creativity in “properly interpreting” scripture to match their latest opinions has always been quite impressive.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Actually if you read your Bible it is pretty hard to condemn slavery. You really have to twist it to come out against slavery.




Maybe as homophobia becomes less acceptable by society, Christians will find similarly clever ways to “properly interpret” their scripture on this issue as well- to make it more socially acceptable. Their cleverness and creativity in “properly interpreting” scripture to match their latest opinions has always been quite impressive.
Click to expand...

This is where the squirming begins when uncomfortable reality hits the bible thumpers. They will try to explain it by saying it's a misinterpretation, an analogy or euphemism. However if you confront them with the fact that the Bible explicitly says that 'god's' word is not open to interpretation but must be taken literally, their argument falls apart.
 
Last edited:
Desert Storm said:
No, we don't.

And smart weapons were designed to minimize civilian casualties, while ISIS thrives on killing as many civilians as they can
Click to expand...

The best laid plans of mice and men, eh....?

Do humans do dumb things with smart weapons? Dumb and immoral?

Affirmative.

KnowDrones
 
ataraxia said:
Actually if you read your Bible it is pretty hard to condemn slavery. You really have to twist it to come out against slavery.




Maybe as homophobia becomes less acceptable by society, Christians will find similarly clever ways to “properly interpret” their scripture on this issue as well- to make it more socially acceptable. Their cleverness and creativity in “properly interpreting” scripture to match their latest opinions has always been quite impressive.
Click to expand...

To the extent God allowed or condoned slavery it was right to be condoned or allowed no matter what modern geniuses erroneously think who imagine their thoughts are better than God's.
 
marke said:
To the extent God allowed or condoned slavery it was right to be condoned or allowed no matter what modern geniuses erroneously think who imagine their thoughts are better than God's.
Click to expand...

Wow. Arrrighty then.

And what makes it wrong now? Or you OK with it?
 
veritas1 said:
You've missed the central point which is that the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to compel the states to an action not shown to be within its purview. Only by the widest possible interpretation can marriage be considered within the purview of the Federal government. Using the logic applied to marriage, the states can apparently control next to nothing when the Constitution was actually designed to let them control most things with a narrow and select few reserved to the Federal government. Ironically, one of those things is immigration law and enforcement yet some states repeatedly interfere with it. Funny how liberals and Democrats have no problem in that case.
Click to expand...

Oh my friend, the number of points you've missed is astounding. You're really not very good at this. So, how is the federal government compelling a State to take any action? What it is actually doing is prohibiting a State to take an action prohibited by the Constitution. You didn't follow any of that previous post, did you? Your thinking is antebellum. Literally. You've completely, utterly ignored the whole point/existence of the 14th Amendment. Or does it just not "count" because it refutes your position. Let's try one more time: if a State does something, like conduct marriages, the 14th Amendment requires that it do it equally to all citizens. To deny a right, or State benefit, it must have a compelling reason. You can't come up with one, so you ignore that.

Then, apparently to demonstrate your utter inability to grasp basic logic functions, you immediately take the opposite position in the next sentence. If immigrating is a federal function and the federal government can't make States do something as you just argued, how is that a State not enforcing federal law a violation of anything? In addition to being a non sequitur, it is a ccomplete contradiction of your previous position. How can one respond to a post if you can't get to the end of a paragraph without resorting to.. One, two, three... separate fallacies?
 
Last edited:
veritas1 said:
You must remember, also, that the 9th was passed before the Bill of Rights was adopted..
Click to expand...
What is included in your Bill of Rights? 1-8, skip 9, 10? That's unique.
 
ataraxia said:
Wow. Arrrighty then.

And what makes it wrong now? Or you OK with it?
Click to expand...

No, not in modern society. But it was not just blacks who sold each other into slavery in the past, Jews, Orientals, Arabs, Romans and others also sold their fellow men into slavery. Hitler made slaves of men and there are many nations today still enslaving men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom