What a Real War on Christmas Might Look Like
In which I urge all ye God-fearing Christians to pick up the flaming sword of righteousness and take up the jihad against the secularization of Christmas by the godless, evil libruls. Although fellow Christian warriors have reported that it is hard to wield the sword of righteousness when you have a new Xbox 360 controller in one hand and a venti
Nikkos-
No I do not think that “downgrading” religion to remove a deity from it is denigrating it. There are many religions that do not believe in a set deity, especially in the East.
What we do fundamentally disagree on is that separation of church and state limits speech and religious practice. Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution but was created by a judicial ruling. The government, according to the actual Constitution as you know, says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I challenge you to show 2 things:
1) How does having “In God We Trust” on a coin or calling a government Christmas tree by its name establish a religion?
2) How is refusing to let a school-child speak about Christianity as a project not prohibiting the excercise of her religion, which specifically states to spread the message?
Ben, once again, and finally: this is exactly why these issues are brought before the Supreme Court.
I am not going to decide them, nor can you decide them.
The thing is, Nikkos, Ben can actually back up his side of the argument.
There is no way you could show how In God We Trust establishes a religion, just as it’s obvious that silencing a school-child from speaking about religion is “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
There are two- possibly more- sides to this argument, as the comments section has borne out.
If anything, I am more convinced that these kinds of cases deserve their day in court. Obviously, the debate stirs up a lot of emotion, as well as some good, hard quetsions, enough so that it seems obvious to me anyways that there is no simple answer.
I for one am glad we have a Supreme Court which exists specifically to parse these complicated, tangled questions of Constitutional law. I am no Constitutional/legal scholar, so the best I can do here is offer my perspective, listen to others’ perspectives, and consider all angles as food for thought.
I agree that the Supreme Court is a good thing (the concept atleast), but we both know that the SCOTUS only chooses to see a few cases per year.
Don’t you think that cases that obviously have no merit should be bypassed for cases that do?
It is SO OBVIOUS that In God We Trust does not establish a specific religion, so I see it as a waste of time because the Supreme Court could be trying a case that actually merits the attention of the highest court in the land.
Just because a case stirs up emotion and questions doesn’t mean it’s valid in the legal sense.
I can say one thing for sure- I’m glad you’re not choosing the cases they hear. Or did you become a scholar of Constitutional law overnight?
You may find the answer obvious, but clearly others do not. It may come as a surprise, but your opinion is not the only one that matters.
That’s the great thing about a democracy….whoops…I mean republic. :)
Nikkos-
I’m aware that my opinion isn’t the only one that matters. What helps though, is that I back up my opinion with facts and logic.
No matter how much you want them to, emotions do not substitute for facts.
?gAbe?
The whole inspiration of our civilization springs from the teachings of Christ and the lessons of the prophets. To read the Bible for these fundamentals is a necessity of American life
–Herbert Hoover
Posted by: Gabe at December 2, 2005 05:14 PM
“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”
Thomas Jefferson, Treaty of Tripoli.
Nice try, but I’ll take the word of someone who was actually there.
Isn’t the current extremist right wing nutjobbery the evils of historical revisionism?
How, oh how will you ever reconcile this. I’m really interested to see doublethink in action.
We have established that atheism fits a definition of religion (at least one).
You’ve established that you managed to find a definition to shoehorn your argument into. That’s all.
You’re ignoring the basic simple facts of reality.
I was born an atheist. You were born an atheist. Every single person in the entire history of the world was born an atheist.
It’s built into the structure of the word: “a” without ( see asexual, amoral etc.) “theism” belief in a god *or gods*.
Somebody who is *not* an atheist has made a choice at some point in their life to actively start believing some particular unprovable thing that most likely their parents told them was a fact rather than being honest and saying it was a belief.
Anyone who either wasn’t told some random story {Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Athena,…}, {Odin, Thor, Loki,…}, {the ancient Hebrew pantheon of which Jehova was the wind god before they swapped over to monotheism and promoted him}, or heard the story and didn’t buy in is an atheist.
That’s the facts about atheism. Dictionaries aren’t authoratative sources.
Let me ask you this. Do you believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world and that he’s pissed about the decreasing number of pirates and has hence caused global warming?
If so, well ramen.
If not, then according to your “definition” you belong to a religion whose sole belief is that the above is not true.
This has nothing to do at all with any other religion you might subscribe to.
That right there is the fundamental problem with describing atheism as a religion.
Atheism is not believing in ANY god Darby… not just one. Now you are discrediting dictionaries as the sources of meanings of words and you accost me as double-speaking. You need to take a step back here and without your vicious partisanship look at the facts.
( it cut off my post )
*( it cut off my post )
*
Since you prefer “the word of someone who was there”:
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: [while emissary to France] “Bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practised. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel.”
ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, FRENCH HISTORIAN: “The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other . . . In the United States, if a political character attacks a sect [denomination], this may not prevent even the partisans of that very sect, from supporting him; but if he attacks all the sects together [Christianity], every one abandons him and he remains alone.”
NOAH WEBSTER, 1828: “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed . . . No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
JAMES MADISON: “We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future . . . upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
Back to you darby.
Atheism is not believing in ANY god Darby… not just one.
You’re point being? Or are you saying that you belong to thousands of religions? It’s really unclear what you’re trying to say here.
Now you are discrediting dictionaries as the sources of meanings of words and you accost me as double-speaking.
Dictionaries have never been the “sources” of the meanings of words.
But you yourself clearly demonstrated that it’s often possible to extract any sort of meaning you want if you look through enough dictionaries.
You need to take a step back here and without your vicious partisanship look at the facts.
Vicious? Hardly, you’re the one trying to tell other people what they belieeve or don’t believe. Partisan?!? WTF?!? We’re discussing politics in the other thread. There is nothing political about this, unless you’re trying to make it so.
I can go on, you can point out 3 or 4 quotes against, I can point out 30-40 quotes for.
You pointed out one where he talked about his beliefs and what he thought ought to happen. My quote was an absolute statement made as part of a binding international treaty. I’m sorry but your quote just doesn’t stand up.
And so whose revisionism is it when you deny the religion and basis for the Constitution, their inspiration, and the private beliefs? What do you wanna tell me they were atheists now?
There is no religious basis for the Constitution. It’s based squarely upon the Liberal philosophy that was the child of the enlightenment.
I’m not going to tell you they were atheists, but a large number of them were certainly not Christians. Many were Deists. That means that they basically believed that the “Creator” made the universe and that’s about it.
And since you are seemingly hostile to religion
Well, if you could point to anything I said that could be interpreted that way, I’d love to see it.
Maybe you could look at the facts objectively (have you ever seriously looked for facts of the truth of a religion or are you bent on the ridiculous assumption that there can’t be facts.
Here’s a believer ( I assume from what you’re saying that you are one?) asking somebody to look at the facts objectively. You are aware that religious beliefs are not and can not be objective aren’t you? It’s part of the very nature of faith.
Did you know nothing in the Bible has ever been disproved through science… especially places, people, locations of items….
Did you know that statement is patently ridiculous? Certainly, there is a lot of good historical and archaeological information in the bible. I read one book called, “The Bible as History” which was written by an archaeologist who went through and pointed out a bunch of sites that had been found solely through using the bible as a reference (well, ok, and some shovels and such) among other things.
It was pretty cool.
Of course, your argument could be used without changing anything but a few names to prove that Zeus existed by reading the Iliad and the fact that they found Troy.
I also urge you Darby to not look down on us dumb believers as less than human beings as your vicious tone seems to connote.
I’m just trying to keep from being burned alive which a lot of your brethren seem to be agitating to bring back. Seriously, don’t even go there. You’re part of the majority group with a long history of violent actions against unbelievers. I’ll thank you to put away the persecution complex.
According to Bush Senior, I am not even a citizen merely because I haven’t chosen to buy into some random unprovable belief. Your “worries” are laughable. Mine are real (well, the burning at the stake bit is exaggerrated, obviously.)
“I’m not going to tell you they were atheists, but a large number of them were certainly not Christians.”
52 of the original 55 members were active church-going members.
So you would argue with Ben Franklin when he said
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor….Have we now forgotten this powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”
“My quote was an absolute statement made as part of a binding international treaty.”
Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too often or too strongly that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians; not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ….It is for this reason that people of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.”
Doesn’t get more absolute than that.
So you would argue with Ben Franklin when he said
No, I would merely repeat the point that somebody’s personal beliefs have nothing to do with the basis of our system of law.
Also. almost everybody was an active church goer back then regardless of their beliefs.
Christians (especially a lot of the ones who came over here originally) are not known for their acceptance of the beliefs of others.
Look guys, everyone can Google the Founding Fathers and find a quote that fits their side of the argument. To wit:
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” – James Madison, “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” – James Madison, “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” – John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved–the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” – John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
“What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the ‘index expurgatorius’, the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine.” – John Adams, letter to John Taylor
“The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.” – John Adams, letter to John Taylor
(“Yahooish brutality” is an awesome turn of phrase, by the way)
“I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works … I mean real good works … not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing … or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity.” – Benjamin Franklin Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot … they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose.” – Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
“Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” – Thomas Jefferson, from “Notes on Virginia”
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787
“But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810
“History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.” – Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
“On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.” – Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816
“It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it.
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, 1820
“The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever more dangerous. Jesus had to work on the perilous confines of reason and religion; and a step to the right or left might place him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.” – Thomas Jefferson to Story, Aug. 4, 1820
“The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” – Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823
Methinks you ran into the same issue I did in the other thread what with the multiple posts ;-).
Let me guess, you clicked submit and it sat around for a while and then just stopped still on the submit page?
Yeah, that’s annoying.
Doesn’t get more absolute than that.
Wow, you’re right. If only it were an actual quote, you’d have a point. Too bad he never said that, isn’t it?.
Nikkos, actually, take out the first 3 of Gabe’s repeats. I like the last one best ;-)
Actually if you could take out my double post in the Mancow thread, that would be great too.
“No, I would merely repeat the point that somebody’s personal beliefs have nothing to do with the basis of our system of law.”
But that’s my point with those quotes that the founding fathers used their personal beliefs to create this system of government we have today. Our beliefs are part of everything we do. You cannot separate them because they form the basis of our values and hence our actions.
Our beliefs are part of everything we do. You cannot separate them because they form the basis of our values and hence our actions.
Except, the belief that they used in drawing up the constitution was their belief in Liberalism. Were they based on the bible, then pork would be outlawed and slavery would be legal. Oops, ok, I’m 50% on that one ;-)
“Yahooish brutality” is an awesome turn of phrase, by the way
Yeah, one of these days I’ll have to try and work that into a conversation ;-)
There may some liberalism but I would counter and say that many of the principles were also Christian in nature. For example, in a New Haven Colony law, they wrote: “The judicial laws of God as they were delivered by Moses . . . [are to] be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction.”
I’m gonna practice my right to bear arms and get me one of these: Birdman Weapons Systems
There may some liberalism but I would counter and say that many of the principles were also Christian in nature.
Which just demonstrates the fact that Christianity is an inherently Liberal religion. In fact it’s rather far to the left which is why the “religious right” is such an oxymoron.
All I have to say Darby is that you are ignorant not only of Christianity but of history. You are afraid of Christians burning you at the stake and being intolerant. Did you know that the most muderous regimes BY FAR of the last 100 years were all secular, and mostly atheist? Oops.
Which just demonstrates the fact that Christianity is an inherently Liberal religion. In fact it’s rather far to the left which is why the “religious right” is such an oxymoron.
You also continue to confuse Leftism with Liberalism. The Liberalism of the founding fathers was LIGHTYEARS from what Leftism is today. Christianity is far to the left? Are you serious? Why then are religious people happier, more affluent, and by far more likely to vote conservative?
Did you know that the most muderous regimes BY FAR of the last 100 years were all secular, and mostly atheist? Oops.
Did you know that “but he did it too” isn’t an argument? Apparently not since you’ve attempted to use it as on a few times that I’ve seen.
So I’m really not sure how that is in any way relevant to the fact that the so-called “Christian-right” in this country is pushing very hard to merge their religion with the state, which has a 100% record throughout history of leading to a corrupt religion and an oppressive government.
Also, it’s somewhat misleading to characterise the regimes you are referring to as “atheist” although it is understandable. They themselves characterised themselves as such for the most part although they didn’t remove all religion. They merely replaced god with the state hence forming a new religion.
That handles the USSR, China, Cambodia under Pol Pot and several others.
It leaves out Hitler and the Nazis though. That regime was explicitly and aggressively “Christian”. I quoted it because, you’ll probably disagree that their actions could be considered Christian, however that isn’t really relevant. They asserted themselves as such and used Christian rationalization, Christian symbolism, and established Christianity as the state religion. The holocaust in fact followed the script laid out by Martin Luther, father of Protestantism.
Don’t believe me? See for yourself
You also continue to confuse Leftism with Liberalism.
No, that would be you.
The Liberalism of the founding fathers was LIGHTYEARS from what Leftism is today.
See? You managed to do it within the same sentence.
Christianity is far to the left? Are you serious? Why then are religious people happier, more affluent, and by far more likely to vote conservative?
Well, Christianity as defined by following Jesus’s teachings is pretty far to the left. That should be pretty obvious to anybody who actually bothered to read his teachings.
Christianity as defined by modern American Christian teachings is going farther and farther away from those teachings and hence farther and farther to the right.
It’s really funny that you mention one of the key dichotomies as support of your argument.
The Calvinist influence is pretty clear when you mention affluence as somehow being a good thing about Christians. Jesus himself said that a camel will fit through the eye of a needle before a rich man makes it into heaven. Strangely, that quote doesn’t seem to make it into many sermons among the religious right who do a lot of picking and choosing as to which parts of the bible to listen to.
Also, they don’t vote conservative. They vote Republican. There is a world of difference although “conservative” isn’t particularly well defined either. I defined my terms (in the other thread) perhaps you would care to define yours so we can make sure we’re talking about the same thing?
The fact is that up until after the WW2, Christians in America were overwhelmingly on the left. It was when the threat of the “godless communists” arose that the American Christians joined up with the wealthy elite for the first time to the corruption of both.
Darby-
Sorry these are a bit out of order.
It leaves out Hitler and the Nazis though. That regime was explicitly and aggressively “Christian”.
All I can say is wow. Maybe you should do a little more research on that. If you don’t think that Hitler and his regime replaced God in their citizens’ lives. Maybe you should read some books about the history of world war 2, especially focusing on the German citizenry.
Also, it’s somewhat misleading to characterise the regimes you are referring to as “atheist” although it is understandable. They themselves characterised themselves as such for the most part although they didn’t remove all religion. They merely replaced god with the state hence forming a new religion.
False again. Do you know how many died in the Gulag for being a Christian? Do you know how many today in China are imprisoned for religious beliefs?
Did you know that “but he did it too” isn’t an argument? Apparently not since you’ve attempted to use it as on a few times that I’ve seen.
Name a few muderous, corrupt “Christian” governments in the 20th century. We’ll chat about them instead of you swiping away my point with your rhetoric. I would say that the extreme religious right may want to impose Christian doctrine on the populace, but that obviously isn’t very Christian. Now accusing me of not reading Christ’s teachings is utterly absurd and you should be ashamed.
The fact that you may have read the teachings but its fairly obvious you haven’t really studied them. Citing “Jesus himself said that a camel will fit through the eye of a needle before a rich man makes it into heaven” as proof of Christianity is left is ignorant. Its hard to understand teachings when you dont look at them through the lens of the teacher sometimes…
The fact is that up until after the WW2, Christians in America were overwhelmingly on the left. It was when the threat of the “godless communists” arose that the American Christians joined up with the wealthy elite for the first time to the corruption of both.
In the 1960s and before Democrats were the patriotic party. I think when it comes to bashing America and self-flagulating the Left has it down pretty well, which is why people really are starting to vote Republican these days… for better or worse.
I guess all I can say Darby is through all your accusations and rhetoric you do have a few good points that I’d like to clarify and focus on. Its sad that when I bring up something you don’t agree with that you either do the classic “parse and destroy” in an attempt to remove the intended meaning from what I said or completely ignore it. I think your massive denial of any names and insults you’ve pulled is ridiculous and I think keeping this civil would be best.
As far as definitions:
Conservative – Someone who believes in traditional values and a rigid Constitution.
Liberal – Someone who believes in the evolution of values and a fluid Constitution.
I can say I am truly neither, though I am much much farther from Liberal.
All I can say is wow. Maybe you should do a little more research on that.
I have. In fact I linked to a nice repository of the research on it demonstrating it. Perhaps you should have read it before you posted such a silly comment?
Do you know how many died in the Gulag for being a Christian? Do you know how many today in China are imprisoned for religious beliefs?
Which completely ignores the point I made. In those places, the state is god and the worship of the state is the religion. Stamping out rival religions in favor of a state religion as a method of control has a long history.
Name a few muderous, corrupt “Christian” governments in the 20th century. We’ll chat about them instead of you swiping away my point with your rhetoric.
Ahhh, so once I destroy your point in a well reasoned manner, you want to move the goalposts?
Citing “Jesus himself said that a camel will fit through the eye of a needle before a rich man makes it into heaven” as proof of Christianity is left is ignorant.
Had I cited it as proof of that, then you might have a point. I obviously didn’t though. I cited it as a means of pointing out how it is inconsistent to try and use “affluence” of “Christians” in an argument.
In the 1960s and before Democrats were the patriotic party.
I’m really not even sure what you mean by this.
Its sad that when I bring up something you don’t agree with that you either do the classic “parse and destroy” in an attempt to remove the intended meaning from what I said or completely ignore it. I think your massive denial of any names and insults you’ve pulled is ridiculous and I think keeping this civil would be best.
That is totally hilarious. I’ve never heard the term “parse and destroy”, so calling it a classic is probably not exactly accurate.
However, let me see if I can try and figure out what it could mean:
“Parsing” is breaking down a sentence, statement, or similar collection of words in order to extract the meaning. OK, sure. It’s an essential part of basic reading comprehension.
“Destroy” hardly an ambiguous term so no need to go into that.
So in this context I’d have to come to the conclusion that you’re saying that I’m taking apart your arguments systematically and destroying them through well reasoned arguments. Fair enough. I have no problem with having what I’m doing characterised that way. That’s the entire basis of debate.
I’d be silly to assume that that is what you actually meant, so perhaps you’d care to enlighten me?
I think your massive denial of any names and insults you’ve pulled is ridiculous and I think keeping this civil would be best.
Ahhh pulling out that again. I again offer you the opportunity to point out where I have insulted or been less than civil to you.
As far as definitions:
Conservative – Someone who believes in traditional values and a rigid Constitution.
Liberal – Someone who believes in the evolution of values and a fluid Constitution.
Well, I can’t really say I agree with your definitions.
I disagree with your definition of Liberal as it already has a meaning: One who believes in individual rights. The left and the right have both worked very hard to redefine it in order to remove that whole viewpoint from discussion, so I know that that meaning is rarely used these days in America. If you ever talk to anybody outside America, you might be surprised to notice they get very confused when you use it in that way since it still means what it always has in most of the world. If you’d care to agree on another term that we can both use to express that meaning, then feel free to suggest one. I’m not aware of any other word that has that meaning though.
As far as your definition of conservative, the primary problem with that is that it is totally ambiguous. Which “traditional values” are you referring to? Do you mean the values that individual liberty is paramount, that merging the state and religion is entirely inconsistent with a free society?
Do you mean the values that witches should not be suffered to live?
As far as a “rigid Constitution”, what part of wanting to amend it to, for the first time in history, specifically target a specific group for an explicit restriction of rights is consistent with that?
I hope it’s clear why I asked for a definition of terms which I’m sure it is since you were so quick to do so.
I also hope it’s clear that those definitions don’t pass muster in order to have any sort of reasonable debate on politics.
The whole “conservative versus liberal” thing is a false dichotomy anyhow. There are many more viewpoints than those, no matter how you define them. I’m certainly not trying to accuse you of being the one to set up the false dichotomy, since as I’ve pointed out many times it was the left and the right together working to stamp out the idea of individual liberty in favor of big government.
I have. In fact I linked to a nice repository of the research on it demonstrating it. Perhaps you should have read it before you posted such a silly comment?
Obviously the single source of research you sited is biased. There are a million ways to look at something and you choose your one.
Which completely ignores the point I made. In those places, the state is god and the worship of the state is the religion. Stamping out rival religions in favor of a state religion as a method of control has a long history.
Again, YOU Darby are side-stepping the issue. I said they were atheists. Since a state is not a god, they were atheists, even if you choose to define state-worship as a religion.
Ahhh, so once I destroy your point in a well reasoned manner, you want to move the goalposts?
Whatever “goalposts” are in your mind, thats fine. My point was that I asked you to name muderous Christian regimes in the last 100 years to BACK UP what you said about how horrible a CHristian regime is. The ball is in your court.
Had I cited it as proof of that, then you might have a point. I obviously didn’t though. I cited it as a means of pointing out how it is inconsistent to try and use “affluence” of “Christians” in an argument.
I’m not sure how proof isn’t pointing out how your argument is right. But you apparently think they are different. Your ignorance of Christianity and this thing where you think “affluence” and “Christianity” don’t mix is sad. Reading the Bible you see that. Maybe instead of your literal hard-lined point where you think Christianity is leftist, you can actual ask some Christians about it without brushing them off before you start.
I’m really not even sure what you mean by this.
Sadly I am not surprised you don’t know what patriotism is.
“Parsing” is breaking down a sentence, statement, or similar collection of words in order to extract the meaning. OK, sure. It’s an essential part of basic reading comprehension.
“Destroy” hardly an ambiguous term so no need to go into that.
Lets see here. Words have meanings. Depending on context and point of view, a statement can have multiple meanings. Your choice on how to side-step my points you dont have facts to show to be false is to interpret my words incorrectly and out of context, and by making the words I chose “blurry” it somehow voids my point. Classic.
Ahhh pulling out that again. I again offer you the opportunity to point out where I have insulted or been less than civil to you.
I’ve pointed them out, you choose to deny them (somehow) or ignore them. My goal is to refrain from them.
I disagree with your definition of Liberal as it already has a meaning: One who believes in individual rights. The left and the right have both worked very hard to redefine it in order to remove that whole viewpoint from discussion, so I know that that meaning is rarely used these days in America. If you ever talk to anybody outside America, you might be surprised to notice they get very confused when you use it in that way since it still means what it always has in most of the world. If you’d care to agree on another term that we can both use to express that meaning, then feel free to suggest one. I’m not aware of any other word that has that meaning though. etc…
Well, first of all, my intention was to point out my belief in their meanings in today’s political discourse. I am quite familiar with classical Liberalism and am a proponent. Neither major party today follows those values.
As far as your comments on my words “traditional” etc, this is an exact example of this “parse and destroy.” Instead of taking what I mean in context, you choose to try and force the words I used to be ambiguous and therefor make it false. Maybe you could ask me to explain it to you so you understand instead of assuming falsehood.
I’m assuming your comment about targeting a specific group in the Consitution to “restrict rights” is about the marriage ammendment. I won’t go there because its so absurd to characterize it as such. I will say that I believe marriage should not have anything to do with government.
Your examples of traditional values, though, are slightly warped. Traditional values such as individual liberty, life, and property, sanctity of the family, etc.
I do think we agree that the current system though with the two parties is an attempt to increase government power and remove individual liberty. I am glad that we agree there.
Obviously the single source of research you sited is biased.
The only possible way that could be obvious is if you define “biased” to mean “proves me wrong”.
Had you even looked at the pictures, let alone read it, you would have seen that the Nazis added the phrase “Gott mit uns” (God with us) to their ensignias as well as choice quotes such as:
“Bolshevism denies religion as a principle, fundamentally and entirely. It recognizes religion only as an “opium for the people”. For the help and support of religious belief, however, National Socialism absolutely places in the foreground of its program a belief in God and that transcendental idealism which has been destined by Nature to bring to expression the racial soul of a nation.”
-Joseph Goebbels, 1935
“The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination.”
-Adolph Hitler
So, the only obvious thing is that I spoke correctly and backed it up with facts and since the facts do not back up your viewpoint (even though I explicitly pointed out how your original point was mostly correct with this one major exception) you claim the source is biased hence not worth reading.
Were you capable of demonstrating the slightest hint of a bias (what kind of a bias you think this could possibly have is another total mystery if not a bias against you being able to keep to your indefensible point) then you would have done so rather than rejecting any fact that disagrees with you out of hand.
Again, YOU Darby are side-stepping the issue.
No, in fact, I addressed the issue head on. That’s why I described that characterisation as “somewhat misleading” (as opposed to “wrong”) but “reasonable” (as in they themselves made that characterisation, but taken in a vacuum it doesn’t fully illuminate the issue).
You’re playing silly symantecal games in the interest of trying to salvage a failed argument in the face of the fact that I largely agreed you but felt it needed some clarification.
Whatever “goalposts” are in your mind, thats fine. My point was that I asked you to name muderous Christian regimes in the last 100 years to BACK UP what you said about how horrible a CHristian regime is.
My point is that you chose a time period during which the civilized world had already rejected the idea of “Christian Regimes” as they have, without exception, led to a corruption of the religion and an oppressive government.
There are no “Christian Regimes” to point to. That has nothing to do with the fact that historically, “Christian regimes” have always been horrible as is any other form of theocracy.
That is how you moved the goalposts. You took what I said and then attempted to move it to a context in which what you expect me to demonstrate doesn’t even exist. In fact it doesn’t exist in the limited time period you chose precisely because what I said is true.
Your ignorance of Christianity and this thing where you think “affluence” and “Christianity” don’t mix is sad.
What I did was point out that using the mixture of them as to try and demonstrate your point is inherently flawed. I know full well that it was one quote from a big book. You can justify pretty much anything you want using the bible, including genocide and slavery.
Maybe instead of your literal hard-lined point where you think Christianity is leftist, you can actual ask some Christians about it without brushing them off before you start.
That’s the thing about Christianity that sets it apart as a legitimate religion from.. say… Scientology. What they claim to believe in is all out in the open. Were I without a bible, expressed the interest in getting one, but lacked the means to go buy one, I’m sure I could legally get a hundred free copies within a day. Heck, you’d probably pony up one yourself.
So asking Christians ( I assume you mean American fundamentalist Christians, as Christians in most of the rest of the world seem to find their beliefs a bit disturbing) about it holds no real value. That will tell me solely which parts of it they have chosen to take to heart. I can just read it myself. The whole reason Jesus was considered such a radical is because he stood up against money and power (money changers in the temple) and for the poor and downtrodden.
You could even use his quotes as endorsement of the separation of church and state (Render unto Caesar…)
Sadly I am not surprised you don’t know what patriotism is.
Sadly, I’m not the least bit surprised that you chose to go so far way out of your way to misinterpret what I said.
I know full well what it is. I also know that the current Republican claims to be that even all they’re pushing is jingoism which is far from patriotism.
What I clearly meant was I don’t understand what you meant by your claim the the Democrats were the patriotic party as if somehow only one could be or even that one of them neccessarily is.
Lets see here. Words have meanings. Depending on context and point of view, a statement can have multiple meanings. Your choice on how to side-step my points you dont have facts to show to be false is to interpret my words incorrectly and out of context, and by making the words I chose “blurry” it somehow voids my point. Classic.
So by the fact that I know words have multiple meanings and I add clarification to make clear what meaning I’m actually using, and am still able to address your points head on, that’s me making things “blurry”?!?
Maybe if you’re so concerned about it, you could choose your words more carefully?
Barring that, if you feel you’ve been misinterpreted, you could merely clarify them.
I’ve pointed them out,
Nope. You haven’t. Not a single one.
You pointed to things I said to Gabe. Not to you.
I also demonstrated how what I said was justified.
Had you been paying attention, you would have taken note of the fact that Gabe actually admitted to trolling, so not only was I backed up by the facts, but by the person in question.
Well, first of all, my intention was to point out my belief in their meanings in today’s political discourse.
Fair enough, and in that context you’re probably pretty accurate. My followup was to point out how useless those are as definitions to have a reasonable debate since they’re ambiguous, riddled with contradictions, and only cover a narrow spectrum of opinion.
Neither major party today follows those values.
I’m certainly going to start disagreeing with my own point now.
As far as your comments on my words “traditional” etc, this is an exact example of this “parse and destroy.” Instead of taking what I mean in context, you choose to try and force the words I used to be ambiguous and therefor make it false. Maybe you could ask me to explain it to you so you understand instead of assuming falsehood.
This is an exact example of nothing of the sort. “Traditional Values” is a meaningless phrase. It is inherently vague, and there isn’t a context that will make it concrete.
Whose tradition and whose values. If you claim “American’s”, then you are sadly ignorant of the long history of dissent in this country.
Just look again at what I said:
“As far as your definition of conservative, the primary problem with that is that it is totally ambiguous. Which “traditional values” are you referring to?”
You’ll note the word “Which” and the fact that the sentence ends with this symbol “?”
That indicates that the sentence is a question. The question was quite clearly and directly asking for you to clarify your definition. The examples were to demonstrate *how* your definition is ambiguous so that you would understand specifically what was unclear in what you said.
Your examples of traditional values, though, are slightly warped.
Which is a blatant example of what’s wrong with the definition. *Your* traditional values are correct, and anyone who disagrees is warped.
By using that term, you’re able to claim anybody who thinks differently is non-traditional or doesn’t have values. I’m not calling you out for doing that, but it is one of the main techniques of the religious right in America, and the reason that they keep using that term.
I’m assuming your comment about targeting a specific group in the Consitution to “restrict rights” is about the marriage ammendment. I won’t go there because its so absurd to characterize it as such.
It was. It certainly isn’t absurd to characterise it as such since that is the entire point of it.
I do think we agree that the current system though with the two parties is an attempt to increase government power and remove individual liberty. I am glad that we agree there.
It’s nice, but it’s odd you’d set up so many barriers and fight so hard against understanding what I’m saying.
Had you even looked at the pictures, let alone read it, you would have seen that the Nazis added the phrase “Gott mit uns” (God with us) to their ensignias as well as choice quotes such as:
“Bolshevism denies religion as a principle, fundamentally and entirely. It recognizes religion only as an “opium for the people”. For the help and support of religious belief, however, National Socialism absolutely places in the foreground of its program a belief in God and that transcendental idealism which has been destined by Nature to bring to expression the racial soul of a nation.”
-Joseph Goebbels, 1935
“The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination.”
Would you say that the Nazis were Christian? Did you know that the KKK thought it was Christian and Osama Bin Laden thinks he is Muslim? Are they right? These religions are exact in their belief systems, just saying you are one doesn’t make you one.
So yes, I did read a great deal of the site, and your point seems to be entirely based on the fact that Nazis said they were Christian, which doesnt mean they are.
My point is that you chose a time period during which the civilized world had already rejected the idea of “Christian Regimes” as they have, without exception, led to a corruption of the religion and an oppressive government. etc.
My problem with your assertion here is twofold. First of all you seem to think that a religious government inherently means it is bad. I just gave examples of SECULAR governments that have killed more people in each one than ALL RELIGIOUS REGIMES in history combined.
My second problem is that you think that somehow a religious government now WOULD be horrible (I am making no assertionm about my own beliefs). If the world has evolved positively to understand Liberalism better, don’t you think those would ideas would be included if a religious regime were to exist? You seem to assert that Liberalism and religion are mutually exclusive.
Barring that, if you feel you’ve been misinterpreted, you could merely clarify them. etc.
My point here is that you immedaitely assume I mispoke when you dont understand my phrase. Maybe in the interest of civil discourse you could humbly assume you didnt understand and ask for clarification.
I’ve pointed them out,
Nope. You haven’t. Not a single one.
My point was not specifically about me Darby. It was about the discourse as a whole. It doesnt really help us to keep beating a dead horse.
I’m certainly going to start disagreeing with my own point now.
I am not sure what that means frankly. Is it sarcastic? When I said neither party follows those values, the values I am referring to are classical Liberalism.
This is an exact example of nothing of the sort. “Traditional Values” is a meaningless phrase. It is inherently vague, and there isn’t a context that will make it concrete.
Whose tradition and whose values. If you claim “American’s”, then you are sadly ignorant of the long history of dissent in this country.
When you gave your list of possible “values” i could be referring to you mentioned “witches.” Obviously in the last 100 years the common, should I say “median” American is most likely to be Christian, have values such as sancitity of family, life, liberty, property, etc. These are what I speak of. I by no means assume that they are MY values and therefor right, it is a fact that the core set of values that is strongest in America is these.
It’s nice, but it’s odd you’d set up so many barriers and fight so hard against understanding what I’m saying.
Don’t you think its a bit wrong to assume I dont understand what you say? We both have a great time arguing and pointing out supposed fallacies in the others’ argument, maybe you could assume that just because I don’t agree and you find a “fallacy” doesn’t mean I don’t understand.
It was. It certainly isn’t absurd to characterise it as such since that is the entire point of it.
All I have to say on this issue is thus:
1) Americans as a whole reject “gay marriage.” The main goal behind this is not to restrict any “rights” of homosexuals but to protect families and children. It is scientifically proven that children are best off with a traditional male/female husband/wife pair family. Now mixed with my belief that marriage should not be a state matter, if two gays want to “marry” go for it, but I don’t think children as part of that equation is right.
2) Gays have the same rights as normal Americans. Everyone in America is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just because some want to do otherwise doesn’t mean their “rights” are violated. NO ONE has the right to marry anyone but someone of the opposite sex under the law, and so I really am curious to hear what “rights” are being denied. Making up rights is dangerous.
So yes, I did read a great deal of the site, and your point seems to be entirely based on the fact that Nazis said they were Christian, which doesnt mean they are.
So what you’re saying is that you completely ignored what I said because I pointed out this inherent contradiction myself.
In fact I predicted you would say that due to a lack of understanding of it.
My point is entirely that they *used* Christianity as a justification for their actions. Hence they were not an atheistic society. They were an explicitly religious society. Whether or not you agree that they lived up to *your* paricular interpretation of the particular religion that they chose to use is meaningless.
The fact is that if you asked a random German at the time if they were religious, then they would have fervently asserted their Christianity. Just like if you asked a random {citizen | subject | pick your own descriptor} of any of the other societies in question, then they would have vehemently denied it and fervently asserted their atheism.
What you consider to be a good upstanding member of any given religion is irrelevant to both the point and to the historical realities.
So, again, my point which had you cared to actually understand it rather than to blast off into nutjob mode completely is completely backed up by the site I linked as you just said.
You have still utterly failed to demonstrate a scrap of bias (besides your own) which was your original excuse to ignore the facts of the matter.
So where’s the bias again?
First of all you seem to think that a religious government inherently means it is bad.
No seeming necessary. I’ve stated it outright, and you have yet to demonstrate a single example to contradict it.
I just gave examples of SECULAR governments that have killed more people in each one than ALL RELIGIOUS REGIMES in history combined.
Well, you tried and failed to do that even though even had you succeeded it still wouldn’t have refuted my point. You’re forgetting that history is very long. You’re also ignoring that my point wasn’t even a point. It was the simple assertion of the fact that there has never been a theocracy that hasn’t been a disaster.
There have been secular governments which haven’t been. I’ll put up the US as my example.
You seem to assert that Liberalism and religion are mutually exclusive.
Which would demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension were you a 5 year old. Since you’re clearly not, it demonstrates a serious aganda in which basic honesty is the victim.
My assertion, which your ridiculous, and entirely unjustifiable statement is neither related to, nor is in any way relevant to anything I’ve said was that merging the religion and the state has *always* been bad for the people. Sure it made a few ruthless bastards rich. If that’s what you’re arguing for, then I’ll (dis)respectfully disagree.
My point here is that you immedaitely assume I mispoke when you dont understand my phrase.
No, I quite clearly assumed nothing of the sort.
You put up a definition and I pointed out how flawed it was.
It’s not a question of understanding or not. My entire point was about how your definitions were entirely worthless for a rational debate.
I understood what you said quite clearly. In fact I expected that you would probably say something along those lines. I’d hoped you might actually have some sort of interest in a reasonable discussion, but you didn’t. You still don’t and you know full well that you lost it a long time ago. Otherwise you would actually try to debate an actual point rather than whine that I destroy your ridiculous arguments without any need to resort to nonsense like this.
My point was not specifically about me Darby. It was about the discourse as a whole. It doesnt really help us to keep beating a dead horse.
But my question was about what I said to you. You obviously couldn’t find anything and so resort to this nonsense. You’re the one who dug up that dead horse and drug it up here. Once you decide to let it lie, I’ll be happy to stop destroying your pathetic arguments on that subject. I mean seriously, your best attempt at an argument is something from a different thread directed at a different person.
Wow, If my debate skills ever get as pathetic as you have demonstrated yours to be, then I dearly hope I have the self respect left to STFU.
I am not sure what that means frankly. Is it sarcastic?
It means I left the “not” out.
Woohoo. You got a point. Good show old man!
Obviously in the last 100 years
There you go again with those arbitrary reference points.
So are you asserting that the word “traditional” can only refer to those traditions that have existed for 100 years or less?
That is what you are saying by trying to go down this course.
Seriously, all you have to do is argue honestly. As long as you keep up this dishonest nonsense, then I will be forced to rub your nose in it.
So let’s review. A Conservative is one who believes in values between a hundred years ago and how recent?
The fact that you’re still trying to play off a script rather than address the issues you are dealing with are laughable to me, but I’m really quite tired of refuting the same nonsense I hear from every single person I’ve ever seen on your side of a debate.
Don’t you think its a bit wrong to assume I dont understand what you say?
I assume that you understand perfectly what I am saying. Based on that assumption, I have to concluse that you have *intentionally* continually misrepresented what I said in a feeble attempt to make some point which you have been entirely unable to do in a reasoned manner.
We both have a great time arguing and pointing out supposed fallacies in the others’ argument
No, I have become quite bored pointing out the rampant fallacies in your arguments while you have failed utterly to find a single fallacy in my reasoning. Heck I found one myself later and figured you’d jump on it but you still failed it.
That’s why you keep harping on my berating of good old Gabe and you declare sites that disagree with you “biased” even though later you come back and admit that my entire point in linking it was true, but present it as you’re somehow coming up with a different point, and various ridiculous nonsense.
Seriously, if you want to learn some actual debate skills, take a logic class or at the very least stop watching silly American news “debate” shows. They’re nonsense as has been your input into this discussion. That isn’t a flame, it’s a statement of fact based on a *long* (’cause time ain’t flying here) time spent watching you come up with the same silly fallacies.
Here’s your homework:
Check out your last paragraph that I’m too bored of this nonsense to bother destroying. Point 2. Look up the difference between “restrict” and violate”
Extra credit: find 2 other logical flaws in your argument.
I’m done in this thread, so feel free to respond if you’d like, but I am completely over it.
Darby-
That’s pretty sad since you completely missed the entire points I made in my thread(s). Your problem is you are coming in assuming I am a dunce (or a moron with an agenda) and you are some sort of flawless arguer. You assume because of your viewpoint that your arguments are pretty close to flawless and therefor mine must be flawed. You assume when my “definitions are wrong” that you know the answer and I don’t. You are living in a “you” centered world my new friend.
Maybe if you read my posts a little more clearly and stopped harping on how good your debate skills are to me as opposed to my horrible ones, you’d read the actual information in them. Here we go:
My point is entirely that they *used* Christianity as a justification for their actions. Hence they were not an atheistic society. They were an explicitly religious society. Whether or not you agree that they lived up to *your* paricular interpretation of the particular religion that they chose to use is meaningless.
Your irreconcilable problem here is that you believe that a religion is open to whatever interpretation someone wants of it. Your belief seems to be that the Nazis WERE Christian because in their “version” of it they were right. Well, that is one of these materialist relativist viewpoints that really is quite ignorant. Whether you know it or not (since you and I are not the center of the universe), there is an absolute truth. When it comes to “Christianity,” whether you know it or not (since you seem fairly ignorant of Christianity in the spiritual sense) there is ONE way to do it.
No seeming necessary. I’ve stated it outright, and you have yet to demonstrate a single example to contradict it.
Ignorance and self-applauding win again for you. First of all in this country (and it is the right way to do it), innocent before guilty. It should be your job to prove that ALL religious governments are bad. It also obviously is going to find disagreement when I define what my version of a successful religious government is. Lets try a few for your pleasure and see how you work yourself into a frenzy over them (if I am worthy to continue this debate with you good sir): the Roman Empire (the Emperors were God-kings and also head-priests), the ancient Islamic Caliphate, the Holy Roman Empire, Ancient Egypt, the ancient Israeli state…. I can go on… can you prove they were all bad and EVERY religious government that was and is and will be is bad? I think not. This is one of those logical things you are so good at you say. I get a point!
Well, you tried and failed to do that even though even had you succeeded it still wouldn’t have refuted my point. You’re forgetting that history is very long. You’re also ignoring that my point wasn’t even a point. It was the simple assertion of the fact that there has never been a theocracy that hasn’t been a disaster.
You are forgetting the differences not only in population, but transportation, media, etc. The gulag in Russia is responsible for somewhere around 30,000,000 deaths. Nazi death camps and wars are responsible for 15,000,000 deaths. I’m sorry, but a few thousand people executed here and there by small-time religious governments or petty wars with a few battles between My assertion, which your ridiculous, and entirely unjustifiable statement is neither related to, nor is in any way relevant to anything I’ve said was that merging the religion and the state has *always* been bad for the people. Sure it made a few ruthless bastards rich. If that’s what you’re arguing for, then I’ll (dis)respectfully disagree.
Let me clarify my statement because you didn’t understand. (And yes, it may be because you didn’t understand it instead of me stating it “wrong”). My point was that you can’t tell me that a Liberal religious combination state wouldn’t work. Your definition of Liberalism may include “separation of church and state” but the correct one does not.
There you go again with those arbitrary reference points.
So are you asserting that the word “traditional” can only refer to those traditions that have existed for 100 years or less?
That is what you are saying by trying to go down this course.
Seriously, all you have to do is argue honestly. As long as you keep up this dishonest nonsense, then I will be forced to rub your nose in it.
Again, because you don’t understand or want to understand the abstract concept I am putting forth, you assume I am dishonest. Typical. Are you trying to say that ever using the word traditional is wrong because its not specific to something? That’s ridiculous. You are picking and choosing words that I cannot use heh so you dont have to address my points.
Tradition is an inherited pattern of thought or action. So, unless you live under a rock, you know that the United States has a general pattern of thought and action that is being passed down from generation to generation. Yes, it is evolving, for better or worse. Yes, in some areas, such as large cities, this may be different than in rural areas. What I am referring to is the overarching median tradition of someone in the United States… the set of values that someone is MOST LIKELY to have if you were to select an American at random. Why is that so hard for you?
But my question was about what I said to you. You obviously couldn’t find anything and so resort to this nonsense. You’re the one who dug up that dead horse and drug it up here. Once you decide to let it lie, I’ll be happy to stop destroying your pathetic arguments on that subject. I mean seriously, your best attempt at an argument is something from a different thread directed at a different person.
Wow, If my debate skills ever get as pathetic as you have demonstrated yours to be, then I dearly hope I have the self respect left to STFU.
Not only can you not refrain from cruel statements such as calling my debate skills pathetic, etc (which falls under the category of personal attacks mind you), but you still just don’t want to understand what I said. The problem was not that you were attacking me, it was that people were attacking people personally. My attempt, though you apprently didn’t understand it, was to request the conversation stay civil regardless of who was part of it. You have failed miserably to do that on your end with your constant barrage of personal attacks because of your supposed intellectual and moral high ground.
You chose not to address gay marriage, and intentionally left out most of my arguments to address phrases and try to rip them apart with your parsing and such. I do think you would benefit in this arena from a little humility and a little less personal attacking. After all, yours is the viewpoint that says “no one’s viewpoint is better than anyone else’s”… right? Or are you actually a left-leaning libertarian?
What if they had a war on Christmas and nobody came?
From the Trib: “Call for show of faith fails to inspire public”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0512120100dec12,1,24980.story?coll=chi-newslocal-hed