Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: Ben Carson; Secular progressives canít keep God out of public life. Washington Times

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Ben Carson; Secular progressives canít keep God out of public life. Washington Times

    "We used to characterize the Soviet Union as a godless, evil empire. Like many societies before them that were based on communism or socialism, the Soviets had seen fit to minimize the importance of God and, in many cases, wreaked unimaginable persecution on religious people. Why is faith in God anathema to such states? Itís because they need to remove any authority beside themselves as the arbiter of right and wrong."

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ion-under-god/

    Notice, "secular progressives," and not liberal or conservative progressives.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Christianity is paramount to freedom and liberty.

    Secularism and atheism is paramount to big government and socialism/communism.


    Most religious states :

    1. MississippiĖ58%

    2. UtahĖ56%

    2. AlabamaĖ56%

    4. LouisianaĖ53%

    5. Arkansas 52%

    5. South CarolinaĖ52%

    6. Tennessee- 50%

    6. North CarolinaĖ50%

    7. GeorgiaĖ48%

    7. OklahomaĖ48%


    Least Religious States :
    1. VermontĖ19%

    2. California- 23%

    3. MaineĖ24%

    4. MassachusettsĖ27%

    5. Rhode IslandĖ29%

    5. OregonĖ29%

    6. District of ColumbiaĖ30%

    7. NevadaĖ31%

    7. HawaiiĖ31%

    7. AlaskaĖ31%

    7. ConnecticutĖ31%

    7. WashingtonĖ31%

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I'll stick with the founders ideas concerning religion and govt.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    As the OP brought out the church of state hates competition.

    This does not mean that atheist are akin to communism.

    In a true liberal free society, ones faith wouldn't be under attack and respected regardless of the faith.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I'll stick with the founders ideas concerning religion and govt.
    And what might that be? If its the same ole "separation of church and state, where the progressives like to spout to keep people from praying in schools or so fourth, then your dead wrong. That is not what it meant. It means Gov cant establish a "religion" kind of like global warming (now called climate change) which is a religion. Not anything to do with praying in schools. BTW, the OP had it correct. Anti American progressives don't like anything that would not allow them to be the center of power.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    199

    Religion

    We already have a gov't religion. It is called EVOLUTION. Evolution is the dumbest most dangerous religion ever created, and all taxpayers are required to pay for it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ńrida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    The Founders made it quite clear:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." which translates to "Congress will not make any law establishing a religion or banning the conscious practice of a religion".
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    ďLife, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.Ē - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by rusty young man View Post
    the founders made it quite clear:

    "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." which translates to "congress will not make any law establishing a religion or banning the conscious practice of a religion A N Y W H E R E".
    fify...
    Last edited by georg jetson; 02-12-2014 at 10:06 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    We already have a gov't religion. It is called EVOLUTION. Evolution is the dumbest most dangerous religion ever created, and all taxpayers are required to pay for it.
    Good call!! I agree 1000% with this statement. So, when schools are forced to teach this religion, is it safe to say, "unconstitutional" ?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by wethepeople View Post
    Good call!! I agree 1000% with this statement. So, when schools are forced to teach this religion, is it safe to say, "unconstitutional" ?
    Is there specific authorization in the US Const that gives the fed gov the power to regulate education in the first place?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Is there specific authorization in the US Const that gives the fed gov the power to regulate education in the first place?
    Absolutely not!

    It is the essential condemnation of republican 'conservatives' that the unconstitutional secretariats have been allowed to remain.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 02-13-2014 at 10:03 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    We already have a gov't religion. It is called EVOLUTION. Evolution is the dumbest most dangerous religion ever created, and all taxpayers are required to pay for it.
    Either you agree with all the science and all the evidence that states evolution is a real thing, or you embrace the story that means that we are all by products of a 6,000 year long incest fest.

    ďAnd I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.Ē
    ~James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    199

    Angry regulation

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Is there specific authorization in the US Const that gives the fed gov the power to regulate education in the first place?
    NO the constitution in the 10th amendment specifically tells what the govt's limitations are. They have no business being in health care, education, fema (disaster relief) WELFARE.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    199

    science

    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Either you agree with all the science and all the evidence that states evolution is a real thing, or you embrace the story that means that we are all by products of a 6,000 year long incest fest.

    ďAnd I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.Ē
    ~James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
    I agree with science and science says that every thing ever used to prove evolution has been proven WRONG. You can believe it if you want to. You can believe in tinker bell if you want to. But DO NOT CALL IT SCIENCE AND PUT IN THE TEXT BOOKS AND MAKE ME PAY FOR IT.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    I agree with science and science says that every thing ever used to prove evolution has been proven WRONG. [ ... ]
    YOU, "Birdman," do not know what proof even means, let alone proof in science.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    199

    Proof

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    YOU, "Birdman," do not know what proof even means, let alone proof in science.
    You only say that because you have none. You have been fooled by vein deceit. You have been sent a strong disillusion and you believe it. Show me some proof. Still waiting.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    You only say that because you have none. You have been fooled by vein deceit. You have been sent a strong disillusion and you believe it. Show me some proof. Still waiting.
    I cannot prove anything, particularly to a doubter, even myself. I can hold in my mind two conflicting hypotheses simultaneously.

    Science is defined by falsifiability and neither in your understanding are falsifiable. Technology is verified and validated, not science.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    NO the constitution in the 10th amendment specifically tells what the govt's limitations are. They have no business being in health care, education, fema (disaster relief) WELFARE.
    Of course not. So how do we remove this usurped power?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    How does one reason with folks who reject facts out of hand?

    ďAlmost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.Ē
    ― Robert A. Heinlein

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Birdman View Post
    NO the constitution in the 10th amendment specifically tells what the govt's limitations are. They have no business being in health care, education, fema (disaster relief) WELFARE.
    There are those nasty mentions of WELFARE, the general welfare, in the Preamble and the General Welfare Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

    Which ever interpretation YOU BIRDman might give, you disagree with Madison OR Hamilton, since even they held conflicting positions.

    Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) (ďAlthough that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.Ē).
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Either you agree with all the science and all the evidence that states evolution is a real thing, or you embrace the story that means that we are all by products of a 6,000 year long incest fest.

    ďAnd I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.Ē
    ~James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
    The member that used to point this out has left so here ya go...

    False dilema.

    One can disagree with many of the assumptions of science without believing in any paricular alternative explanation.

  22. #22
    Regular Member MurrayRothbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Of course not. So how do we remove this usurped power?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3a1ce92d4d5ead13ec01c5df26df218d34aa3a86274d9162b0be24d58c34e760.jpg 
Views:	53 
Size:	40.5 KB 
ID:	11265

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    How does one reason with folks who reject facts out of hand? ďAlmost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.Ē ― Robert A. Heinlein
    By out of context cherry picking others thoughts.

    It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. (Robert Anson Heinlein, Time Enough For Love, 1973)
    Your little mind has been seized.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    The Founders made it quite clear:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." which translates to "Congress will not make any law establishing a religion or banning the conscious practice of a religion".
    What the Founders meant to state:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of choosing a specific religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof of any religion..."

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    What the Founders meant to state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of choosing a specific religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof of any religion..."
    Really? I'm sure that your heart is in the right place, but I am equally sure that the Founders wrote precisely what they meant. That our language has been so vulgarized is not on them, but on US.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •