Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A "time for choosing"?

Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 10:27:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
(NOTE: This forum assumes a conservative point of view, dealing with whether or not we should choose the lesser of two evils in an election such as this.)

This presidential cycle isn't a good one. If you agree with me (and the majority of the U.S. population), voting for either of the only viable candidates is choosing between the lesser of two evils. However, I have great concern over the Supreme Court. For example:

- The 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case won with only 5 justices against 4, and the 4 justices that were against Hobby Lobby are still on the court.
- Another decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), allowed the town of Greece, New York to open its monthly board meetings with a prayer, but again the decision was ruled by only 5-4, with the four opposing still on the court. If the number increases by even one, would new justices ban this and more?
- Another decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), upheld banning partial-birth abortion. Yet again, the decision was ruled by only 5-4. Though not all four are still on the court, I can't trust that the ones who are are opposed to reversing the decision. If so, people could abort babies in the 9th month of pregnancy!
- Could the First Amendment be under fire? What if churches get banned from teaching their views because others see it as being "bigoted"? I can see it happening.

Because of all this, the lesser of two evils may need to be voted for! However, of course, the decision is yours.

Thank you,
Kilk1
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 10:50:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 10:27:02 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
(NOTE: This forum assumes a conservative point of view, dealing with whether or not we should choose the lesser of two evils in an election such as this.)

This presidential cycle isn't a good one. If you agree with me (and the majority of the U.S. population), voting for either of the only viable candidates is choosing between the lesser of two evils. However, I have great concern over the Supreme Court. For example:

- The 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case won with only 5 justices against 4, and the 4 justices that were against Hobby Lobby are still on the court.
- Another decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), allowed the town of Greece, New York to open its monthly board meetings with a prayer, but again the decision was ruled by only 5-4, with the four opposing still on the court. If the number increases by even one, would new justices ban this and more?
- Another decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), upheld banning partial-birth abortion. Yet again, the decision was ruled by only 5-4. Though not all four are still on the court, I can't trust that the ones who are are opposed to reversing the decision. If so, people could abort babies in the 9th month of pregnancy!
- Could the First Amendment be under fire? What if churches get banned from teaching their views because others see it as being "bigoted"? I can see it happening.

Because of all this, the lesser of two evils may need to be voted for! However, of course, the decision is yours.

Thank you,
Kilk1

Most of your points make sense, but why on earth is not allowing people to open city council meetings with a prayer a bad thing?
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 12:04:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 10:27:02 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
(NOTE: This forum assumes a conservative point of view, dealing with whether or not we should choose the lesser of two evils in an election such as this.)

This presidential cycle isn't a good one. If you agree with me (and the majority of the U.S. population), voting for either of the only viable candidates is choosing between the lesser of two evils. However, I have great concern over the Supreme Court. For example:

- The 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case won with only 5 justices against 4, and the 4 justices that were against Hobby Lobby are still on the court.
- Another decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), allowed the town of Greece, New York to open its monthly board meetings with a prayer, but again the decision was ruled by only 5-4, with the four opposing still on the court. If the number increases by even one, would new justices ban this and more?
- Another decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), upheld banning partial-birth abortion. Yet again, the decision was ruled by only 5-4. Though not all four are still on the court, I can't trust that the ones who are are opposed to reversing the decision. If so, people could abort babies in the 9th month of pregnancy!
- Could the First Amendment be under fire? What if churches get banned from teaching their views because others see it as being "bigoted"? I can see it happening.

Because of all this, the lesser of two evils may need to be voted for! However, of course, the decision is yours.

Thank you,
Kilk1

Voting Trump seems like the Christian thing to do.
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 1:55:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 10:50:31 PM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 10/29/2016 10:27:02 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
(NOTE: This forum assumes a conservative point of view, dealing with whether or not we should choose the lesser of two evils in an election such as this.)

This presidential cycle isn't a good one. If you agree with me (and the majority of the U.S. population), voting for either of the only viable candidates is choosing between the lesser of two evils. However, I have great concern over the Supreme Court. For example:

- The 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case won with only 5 justices against 4, and the 4 justices that were against Hobby Lobby are still on the court.
- Another decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), allowed the town of Greece, New York to open its monthly board meetings with a prayer, but again the decision was ruled by only 5-4, with the four opposing still on the court. If the number increases by even one, would new justices ban this and more?
- Another decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), upheld banning partial-birth abortion. Yet again, the decision was ruled by only 5-4. Though not all four are still on the court, I can't trust that the ones who are are opposed to reversing the decision. If so, people could abort babies in the 9th month of pregnancy!
- Could the First Amendment be under fire? What if churches get banned from teaching their views because others see it as being "bigoted"? I can see it happening.

Because of all this, the lesser of two evils may need to be voted for! However, of course, the decision is yours.

Thank you,
Kilk1

Most of your points make sense, but why on earth is not allowing people to open city council meetings with a prayer a bad thing?

Hello. I'm okay if a city council doesn't want its meetings open with a prayer. However, if the Supreme Court rules it as being unconstitutional and thus forces city councils that DO want prayers to NOT have them, that's a bad precedent, the way I see it. It seems to suggest an interpretation of the First Amendment that religion of any sort is to be stripped from anything public, which is an unrealistic interpretation, considering that Founding Father John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (https://en.wikiquote.org...). Religion is not supposed to be the issue; rather, the issues should be over "an establishment of religion."
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:31:54 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 10:27:02 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
(NOTE: This forum assumes a conservative point of view, dealing with whether or not we should choose the lesser of two evils in an election such as this.)

This presidential cycle isn't a good one. If you agree with me (and the majority of the U.S. population), voting for either of the only viable candidates is choosing between the lesser of two evils. However, I have great concern over the Supreme Court. For example:

- The 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case won with only 5 justices against 4, and the 4 justices that were against Hobby Lobby are still on the court.
- Another decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), allowed the town of Greece, New York to open its monthly board meetings with a prayer, but again the decision was ruled by only 5-4, with the four opposing still on the court. If the number increases by even one, would new justices ban this and more?
- Another decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), upheld banning partial-birth abortion. Yet again, the decision was ruled by only 5-4. Though not all four are still on the court, I can't trust that the ones who are are opposed to reversing the decision. If so, people could abort babies in the 9th month of pregnancy!
- Could the First Amendment be under fire? What if churches get banned from teaching their views because others see it as being "bigoted"? I can see it happening.

Because of all this, the lesser of two evils may need to be voted for! However, of course, the decision is yours.

Thank you,
Kilk1

Everything within the U.S. Supreme Court is EXTREMELY politicized. When almost every single ruling handed down by this, the highest court in the land, can literally be predicted with over 95% accuracy and precision, based strictly on political lines...there is a MASSIVE problem with the system. No matter who is president, no matter which party holds majority in the House or Senate, we should be able to immediately replace an empty justice seat with a qualified candidate.

The worst part of the entire situation, in my opinion, is that the American citizens are so busy fighting, bickering and arguing over whether or not Obama's nominee should be voted on; we are completely ignoring the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has become completely corrupt. Instead of being run by the rule of law and the clear, apolitical interpretation of the written word, law, freedom, right, amendment, etc.; it is instead just as polarized on political lines as the U.S. government.

If my voice carried any weight across the nation, I would tell Americans to stop tunnel vision fighting each other over nonsense that doesn't matter, and start turning your anger and fighting toward the people that need and deserve it....the American political and judicial systems.
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 7:43:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 3:31:54 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

Everything within the U.S. Supreme Court is EXTREMELY politicized. When almost every single ruling handed down by this, the highest court in the land, can literally be predicted with over 95% accuracy and precision, based strictly on political lines...there is a MASSIVE problem with the system. No matter who is president, no matter which party holds majority in the House or Senate, we should be able to immediately replace an empty justice seat with a qualified candidate.

The worst part of the entire situation, in my opinion, is that the American citizens are so busy fighting, bickering and arguing over whether or not Obama's nominee should be voted on; we are completely ignoring the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has become completely corrupt. Instead of being run by the rule of law and the clear, apolitical interpretation of the written word, law, freedom, right, amendment, etc.; it is instead just as polarized on political lines as the U.S. government.

If my voice carried any weight across the nation, I would tell Americans to stop tunnel vision fighting each other over nonsense that doesn't matter, and start turning your anger and fighting toward the people that need and deserve it....the American political and judicial systems.

The Supreme Court seems to want to make laws rather than interpret the Constitution, it's real job. That's why we need to elect presidents who will appoint originalists.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:13:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
The founding fathers thought there was occasionally a need for someone to act like a King and modify or eliminate certain laws that they knew were bad, and even if the majority of people disagreed with him and were in favor of keeping a law that was unjust he would have to use his authority and tell them that this was the way it will be from now on , like it or not.
While a judge may have appeared to have conservative values, after he is appointed to the supreme court, he can do whatever the **** he feels like doing.
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:07:40 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:13:47 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
The founding fathers thought there was occasionally a need for someone to act like a King and modify or eliminate certain laws that they knew were bad, and even if the majority of people disagreed with him and were in favor of keeping a law that was unjust he would have to use his authority and tell them that this was the way it will be from now on , like it or not.
While a judge may have appeared to have conservative values, after he is appointed to the supreme court, he can do whatever the **** he feels like doing.

I've never heard before that the Founding Fathers "thought there was occasionally a need for someone to act like a King and modify or eliminate certain laws that they knew were bad." But maybe I'm wrong. Do you have a source for this? Thanks!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:17:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 12:04:47 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 10/29/2016 10:27:02 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
(NOTE: This forum assumes a conservative point of view, dealing with whether or not we should choose the lesser of two evils in an election such as this.)

This presidential cycle isn't a good one. If you agree with me (and the majority of the U.S. population), voting for either of the only viable candidates is choosing between the lesser of two evils. However, I have great concern over the Supreme Court. For example:

- The 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case won with only 5 justices against 4, and the 4 justices that were against Hobby Lobby are still on the court.
- Another decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), allowed the town of Greece, New York to open its monthly board meetings with a prayer, but again the decision was ruled by only 5-4, with the four opposing still on the court. If the number increases by even one, would new justices ban this and more?
- Another decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), upheld banning partial-birth abortion. Yet again, the decision was ruled by only 5-4. Though not all four are still on the court, I can't trust that the ones who are are opposed to reversing the decision. If so, people could abort babies in the 9th month of pregnancy!
- Could the First Amendment be under fire? What if churches get banned from teaching their views because others see it as being "bigoted"? I can see it happening.

Because of all this, the lesser of two evils may need to be voted for! However, of course, the decision is yours.

Thank you,
Kilk1

Voting Trump seems like the Christian thing to do.

Christians...only slightly more refined when it comes to zealotry wars.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:19:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 7:43:59 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 3:31:54 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

Everything within the U.S. Supreme Court is EXTREMELY politicized. When almost every single ruling handed down by this, the highest court in the land, can literally be predicted with over 95% accuracy and precision, based strictly on political lines...there is a MASSIVE problem with the system. No matter who is president, no matter which party holds majority in the House or Senate, we should be able to immediately replace an empty justice seat with a qualified candidate.

The worst part of the entire situation, in my opinion, is that the American citizens are so busy fighting, bickering and arguing over whether or not Obama's nominee should be voted on; we are completely ignoring the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has become completely corrupt. Instead of being run by the rule of law and the clear, apolitical interpretation of the written word, law, freedom, right, amendment, etc.; it is instead just as polarized on political lines as the U.S. government.

If my voice carried any weight across the nation, I would tell Americans to stop tunnel vision fighting each other over nonsense that doesn't matter, and start turning your anger and fighting toward the people that need and deserve it....the American political and judicial systems.

The Supreme Court seems to want to make laws rather than interpret the Constitution, it's real job. That's why we need to elect presidents who will appoint originalists.

The congress has gone too far down the slippery slope, and will fight any measure to limit the government.
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:32:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 2:19:23 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

The congress has gone too far down the slippery slope, and will fight any measure to limit the government.

Yeah, the POTUS isn't the only one to worry about and vote for. Hmm... Maybe Trump's "Drain the Swamp" procedure could fix this? Only time will tell, I suppose.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:29:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 1:55:08 AM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 10/29/2016 10:50:31 PM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 10/29/2016 10:27:02 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
(NOTE: This forum assumes a conservative point of view, dealing with whether or not we should choose the lesser of two evils in an election such as this.)

This presidential cycle isn't a good one. If you agree with me (and the majority of the U.S. population), voting for either of the only viable candidates is choosing between the lesser of two evils. However, I have great concern over the Supreme Court. For example:

- The 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case won with only 5 justices against 4, and the 4 justices that were against Hobby Lobby are still on the court.
- Another decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), allowed the town of Greece, New York to open its monthly board meetings with a prayer, but again the decision was ruled by only 5-4, with the four opposing still on the court. If the number increases by even one, would new justices ban this and more?
- Another decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), upheld banning partial-birth abortion. Yet again, the decision was ruled by only 5-4. Though not all four are still on the court, I can't trust that the ones who are are opposed to reversing the decision. If so, people could abort babies in the 9th month of pregnancy!
- Could the First Amendment be under fire? What if churches get banned from teaching their views because others see it as being "bigoted"? I can see it happening.

Because of all this, the lesser of two evils may need to be voted for! However, of course, the decision is yours.

Thank you,
Kilk1

Most of your points make sense, but why on earth is not allowing people to open city council meetings with a prayer a bad thing?

Hello. I'm okay if a city council doesn't want its meetings open with a prayer. However, if the Supreme Court rules it as being unconstitutional and thus forces city councils that DO want prayers to NOT have them, that's a bad precedent, the way I see it. It seems to suggest an interpretation of the First Amendment that religion of any sort is to be stripped from anything public, which is an unrealistic interpretation, considering that Founding Father John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (https://en.wikiquote.org...). Religion is not supposed to be the issue; rather, the issues should be over "an establishment of religion."

And Thomas Jefferson said:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

See also:
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson, 1786 - (in part)
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.


It is reasonable to believe that what TJ wanted for his beloved state of Virginia, he wanted for all of the United States.
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 7:20:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 3:29:42 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

And Thomas Jefferson said:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

See also:
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson, 1786 - (in part)
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.


It is reasonable to believe that what TJ wanted for his beloved state of Virginia, he wanted for all of the United States.

Yes, Thomas Jefferson said that "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion." This describes a world in which people have different worldviews and "by argument ... maintain" them (e.g., what we do here on DDO), all without the fear of government interference.

Again, there's a difference between the government not favoring "an establishment of religion" and the government banning religion itself from the public sphere. If a city council wants to have prayer, the SCOTUS shouldn't get to legislate and ban them from doing so.

Thomas Jefferson himself said, "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 civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." Again, John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And if the Founding Fathers didn't want public prayer, why did they have it at the Constitutional Convention. It was Benjamin Franklin who requested "that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service."

For these reasons, it's clear that the Founding Fathers wanted religion in government. The Constitution "is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Sorry for the long reply, though.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 7:33:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 10:27:02 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
(NOTE: This forum assumes a conservative point of view, dealing with whether or not we should choose the lesser of two evils in an election such as this.)

This presidential cycle isn't a good one. If you agree with me (and the majority of the U.S. population), voting for either of the only viable candidates is choosing between the lesser of two evils. However, I have great concern over the Supreme Court. For example:

- The 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case won with only 5 justices against 4, and the 4 justices that were against Hobby Lobby are still on the court.
- Another decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), allowed the town of Greece, New York to open its monthly board meetings with a prayer, but again the decision was ruled by only 5-4, with the four opposing still on the court. If the number increases by even one, would new justices ban this and more?
- Another decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), upheld banning partial-birth abortion. Yet again, the decision was ruled by only 5-4. Though not all four are still on the court, I can't trust that the ones who are are opposed to reversing the decision. If so, people could abort babies in the 9th month of pregnancy!
- Could the First Amendment be under fire? What if churches get banned from teaching their views because others see it as being "bigoted"? I can see it happening.

Because of all this, the lesser of two evils may need to be voted for! However, of course, the decision is yours.

Thank you,
Kilk1

Out of interest, if you are pro-life, why is it that the focus is on constitutional and legal methods of outlawing the process; rather than undermining the social reasons that cause women to end up seeking abortions?

For example, if you can effectively eliminate Abortion through sex and relationship education, and laws combating poverty; both of which have a positive impact in many other aspects, including overall outlook, long term poverty, teenage pregnancy, etc; why do you even have to bother with trying to attack Abortion legally?

The chances are that social factors will preclude abortion ever being made illegal everywhere, and even if it were, the chances of illegality eliminating abortions is low given history, and has the negative consequences of increasing the health risk to women seeking illegal options.

If you're pro-life, why is it not the case that you try and search for the most effective way of eliminating abortions: which is through significant education, easy access to birth control, and a concerted movement to eradicate poverty.

You'll save the most lives doing things that way, and help the overall health and functioning of society in general.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 1:53:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 7:20:30 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:29:42 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

And Thomas Jefferson said:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

See also:
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson, 1786 - (in part)
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.


It is reasonable to believe that what TJ wanted for his beloved state of Virginia, he wanted for all of the United States.

Yes, Thomas Jefferson said that "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion." This describes a world in which people have different worldviews and "by argument ... maintain" them (e.g., what we do here on DDO), all without the fear of government interference.

Again, there's a difference between the government not favoring "an establishment of religion" and the government banning religion itself from the public sphere. If a city council wants to have prayer, the SCOTUS shouldn't get to legislate and ban them from doing so.

Thomas Jefferson himself said, "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 civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." Again, John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And if the Founding Fathers didn't want public prayer, why did they have it at the Constitutional Convention. It was Benjamin Franklin who requested "that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service."

For these reasons, it's clear that the Founding Fathers wanted religion in government. The Constitution "is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Sorry for the long reply, though.

The God of the constitution is the God of Deism.
Not Christian, not Jewish, not Hindu, not Muslim, not any recognised religion.
The FF wanted the blessing of God, one that had no affiliation with any man on earth.
God alone, NOT religion, no religion.
This was very clear.
This is why George Washington never declared himself to be a Christian, never took communion, and why his minister said he was no Christian, but rather a Deist.
Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and many other were not Christian, but Deist.
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 3:18:21 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 7:33:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Out of interest, if you are pro-life, why is it that the focus is on constitutional and legal methods of outlawing the process; rather than undermining the social reasons that cause women to end up seeking abortions?

For example, if you can effectively eliminate Abortion through sex and relationship education, and laws combating poverty; both of which have a positive impact in many other aspects, including overall outlook, long term poverty, teenage pregnancy, etc; why do you even have to bother with trying to attack Abortion legally?

The chances are that social factors will preclude abortion ever being made illegal everywhere, and even if it were, the chances of illegality eliminating abortions is low given history, and has the negative consequences of increasing the health risk to women seeking illegal options.

If you're pro-life, why is it not the case that you try and search for the most effective way of eliminating abortions: which is through significant education, easy access to birth control, and a concerted movement to eradicate poverty.

You'll save the most lives doing things that way, and help the overall health and functioning of society in general.

Abortion can be combated in many ways, not just by legal means. However, in this forum, I'm discussing the fact that the Supreme Court could allow an infant in the ninth month of pregnancy to be partially born, then have the skull crushed so the baby is born dead! Can you justify such a barbarous act, or would you at least agree that nine months is going to far?
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 3:19:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 1:53:39 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

The God of the constitution is the God of Deism.
Not Christian, not Jewish, not Hindu, not Muslim, not any recognised religion.
The FF wanted the blessing of God, one that had no affiliation with any man on earth.
God alone, NOT religion, no religion.
This was very clear.
This is why George Washington never declared himself to be a Christian, never took communion, and why his minister said he was no Christian, but rather a Deist.
Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and many other were not Christian, but Deist.

Wait, did you just say the Founding Fathers wanted "no religion"? Then what gave John Adams the impression that the "Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people," and that the Constitution "is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." It's a little strange he'd come up with that idea if they wanted "NOT religion, no religion."

You said, "The God of the constitution is the God of Deism." If so, then how come of the 55 delegates to attend the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (http://tinyurl.com...)? That leaves four for the irreligious. Really!?

However, I understand that I could be misunderstanding something you're saying. Is there anything wrong in what I'm saying?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 1:58:03 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 3:19:32 AM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 11/2/2016 1:53:39 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

The God of the constitution is the God of Deism.
Not Christian, not Jewish, not Hindu, not Muslim, not any recognised religion.
The FF wanted the blessing of God, one that had no affiliation with any man on earth.
God alone, NOT religion, no religion.
This was very clear.
This is why George Washington never declared himself to be a Christian, never took communion, and why his minister said he was no Christian, but rather a Deist.
Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and many other were not Christian, but Deist.

Wait, did you just say the Founding Fathers wanted "no religion"? Then what gave John Adams the impression that the "d that the Constitution "is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." It's a lConstitution was made only for a moral and religious people," anittle strange he'd come up with that idea if they wanted "NOT religion, no religion."

John Adams was a Unitarian.
Unitarians do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
As a group, the do not accept the divinity of Jesus.
In the time of Adam, Unitarians were considered Christian heretics.
I hear that Adams did believe in the miracles of Jesus, but it is doubtful that he accepted the divine nature of Jesus that is common among "Christians".
Like Jefferson, he believed Jesus was a great moral teacher.
"He did not believe that religious views should either hinder or help a politician in matters of law and politics which needed only reason and common sense. He believed that allowing for free conscience would allow men of all religious beliefs to succeed in uniting together for the good of society and the state. "
All religious beliefs, which would include atheism.
So, the 'religion' of Adams, had no Trinity, no Jesus as God, no divine Jesus.

You said, "The God of the constitution is the God of Deism." If so, then how come of the 55 delegates to attend the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (http://tinyurl.com...)? That leaves four for the irreligious. Really!?

Why is it hard for you to believe that even for those who were religious, they would not want this as some sort of requirement for the citizens, or that the citizens should expect religion from its government?

And do you now tell us that anyone who ever joined a Christian church is a Christian?
If that how you define a 'Christian' - anyone who joined a Christian church - regardless of beliefs?

When George Washington left office the local ministers asked him to profess his Christianity, and he refused to do this. Absolutely refused.
When his minister rebuked anyone who attended church but failed to take communion, he stopped going to church when communion was offered.
It was rumored that Washington was not a Christian.
Here is the account of Jefferson:
"Feb. 1. Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the Government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article in their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory address to the governors of the States when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion.
"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in the system (Christianity) than he did." (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 1, p. 284.)

So. Washington's contemporaries did not believe he was a Christian, rather a Deist.

However, I understand that I could be misunderstanding something you're saying. Is there anything wrong in what I'm saying?
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 2:22:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 1:58:03 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/3/2016 3:19:32 AM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 11/2/2016 1:53:39 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

The God of the constitution is the God of Deism.
Not Christian, not Jewish, not Hindu, not Muslim, not any recognised religion.
The FF wanted the blessing of God, one that had no affiliation with any man on earth.
God alone, NOT religion, no religion.
This was very clear.
This is why George Washington never declared himself to be a Christian, never took communion, and why his minister said he was no Christian, but rather a Deist.
Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and many other were not Christian, but Deist.

Wait, did you just say the Founding Fathers wanted "no religion"? Then what gave John Adams the impression that the "d that the Constitution "is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." It's a lConstitution was made only for a moral and religious people," anittle strange he'd come up with that idea if they wanted "NOT religion, no religion."

John Adams was a Unitarian.
Unitarians do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
As a group, the do not accept the divinity of Jesus.
In the time of Adam, Unitarians were considered Christian heretics.
I hear that Adams did believe in the miracles of Jesus, but it is doubtful that he accepted the divine nature of Jesus that is common among "Christians".
Like Jefferson, he believed Jesus was a great moral teacher.
"He did not believe that religious views should either hinder or help a politician in matters of law and politics which needed only reason and common sense. He believed that allowing for free conscience would allow men of all religious beliefs to succeed in uniting together for the good of society and the state. "
All religious beliefs, which would include atheism.
So, the 'religion' of Adams, had no Trinity, no Jesus as God, no divine Jesus.

You said, "The God of the constitution is the God of Deism." If so, then how come of the 55 delegates to attend the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (http://tinyurl.com...)? That leaves four for the irreligious. Really!?

Why is it hard for you to believe that even for those who were religious, they would not want this as some sort of requirement for the citizens, or that the citizens should expect religion from its government?

And do you now tell us that anyone who ever joined a Christian church is a Christian?
If that how you define a 'Christian' - anyone who joined a Christian church - regardless of beliefs?

When George Washington left office the local ministers asked him to profess his Christianity, and he refused to do this. Absolutely refused.
When his minister rebuked anyone who attended church but failed to take communion, he stopped going to church when communion was offered.
It was rumored that Washington was not a Christian.
Here is the account of Jefferson:
"Feb. 1. Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the Government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article in their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory address to the governors of the States when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion.
"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in the system (Christianity) than he did." (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 1, p. 284.)

So. Washington's contemporaries did not believe he was a Christian, rather a Deist.

However, I understand that I could be misunderstanding something you're saying. Is there anything wrong in what I'm saying?

Okay, this is starting to get too much off topic. Because of this, I'll leave you with the last word--unless you're struggling with whether or not to vote for the lesser of two evils, and this conversation could help you decide or something. However, I don't see how that would be the case the conversation we've been having (but I could be wrong).
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 2:26:40 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 1:55:08 AM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 10/29/2016 10:50:31 PM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 10/29/2016 10:27:02 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
(NOTE: This forum assumes a conservative point of view, dealing with whether or not we should choose the lesser of two evils in an election such as this.)

This presidential cycle isn't a good one. If you agree with me (and the majority of the U.S. population), voting for either of the only viable candidates is choosing between the lesser of two evils. However, I have great concern over the Supreme Court. For example:

- The 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case won with only 5 justices against 4, and the 4 justices that were against Hobby Lobby are still on the court.
- Another decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), allowed the town of Greece, New York to open its monthly board meetings with a prayer, but again the decision was ruled by only 5-4, with the four opposing still on the court. If the number increases by even one, would new justices ban this and more?
- Another decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), upheld banning partial-birth abortion. Yet again, the decision was ruled by only 5-4. Though not all four are still on the court, I can't trust that the ones who are are opposed to reversing the decision. If so, people could abort babies in the 9th month of pregnancy!
- Could the First Amendment be under fire? What if churches get banned from teaching their views because others see it as being "bigoted"? I can see it happening.

Because of all this, the lesser of two evils may need to be voted for! However, of course, the decision is yours.

Thank you,
Kilk1

Most of your points make sense, but why on earth is not allowing people to open city council meetings with a prayer a bad thing?

Hello. I'm okay if a city council doesn't want its meetings open with a prayer. However, if the Supreme Court rules it as being unconstitutional and thus forces city councils that DO want prayers to NOT have them, that's a bad precedent, the way I see it. It seems to suggest an interpretation of the First Amendment that religion of any sort is to be stripped from anything public, which is an unrealistic interpretation, considering that Founding Father John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (https://en.wikiquote.org...). Religion is not supposed to be the issue; rather, the issues should be over "an establishment of religion."

But if a city council (a government authority) opens with a prayer pertaining to a particular religion, that is indeed an establishment of religion and is thus forbidden by the first amendment.
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 2:38:03 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 2:26:40 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:

But if a city council (a government authority) opens with a prayer pertaining to a particular religion, that is indeed an establishment of religion and is thus forbidden by the first amendment.

I see what you're saying. However, as Justice Thomas pointed out in the case, the First Amendment actually says, "Congress [emphasis mine] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." This doesn't apply to a local city council but to congress. Furthermore, it's hard to make a prayer that's 100% neutral, as even many deists would reject any intercessory prayer. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Convention wasn't opposed to having prayer.

I don't like the precedent the SCOTUS could have ended up giving. It could ironically result in it "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therefore, for the sake of the Constitution, I'll support the lesser of two evils.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 1:52:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 3:18:21 AM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 7:33:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Out of interest, if you are pro-life, why is it that the focus is on constitutional and legal methods of outlawing the process; rather than undermining the social reasons that cause women to end up seeking abortions?

For example, if you can effectively eliminate Abortion through sex and relationship education, and laws combating poverty; both of which have a positive impact in many other aspects, including overall outlook, long term poverty, teenage pregnancy, etc; why do you even have to bother with trying to attack Abortion legally?

The chances are that social factors will preclude abortion ever being made illegal everywhere, and even if it were, the chances of illegality eliminating abortions is low given history, and has the negative consequences of increasing the health risk to women seeking illegal options.

If you're pro-life, why is it not the case that you try and search for the most effective way of eliminating abortions: which is through significant education, easy access to birth control, and a concerted movement to eradicate poverty.

You'll save the most lives doing things that way, and help the overall health and functioning of society in general.

Abortion can be combated in many ways, not just by legal means. However, in this forum, I'm discussing the fact that the Supreme Court could allow an infant in the ninth month of pregnancy to be partially born, then have the skull crushed so the baby is born dead! Can you justify such a barbarous act, or would you at least agree that nine months is going to far?

Oh, so you're only opposed to barbarous forms of very late term abortions?

I can understand that.

How do you feel about, say, late term abortions (third trimester), when the majority of abortions are performed because tests reveal significant health dangers for the mother, and likely lethal birth defects in the baby?

Or, for example, lets say a test at 7 months reveals that the baby is not viable and will likely die within a week of birth due to discovered birth defects, and without an abortion the women is at significant risk of death if the pregnancy continues?
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 9:01:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 1:52:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Oh, so you're only opposed to barbarous forms of very late term abortions?

I can understand that.

How do you feel about, say, late term abortions (third trimester), when the majority of abortions are performed because tests reveal significant health dangers for the mother, and likely lethal birth defects in the baby?

Or, for example, lets say a test at 7 months reveals that the baby is not viable and will likely die within a week of birth due to discovered birth defects, and without an abortion the women is at significant risk of death if the pregnancy continues?

Your scenarios aren't even on the ballot this cycle, as the two viable candidates in the race agree in regards to those; on the other hand, partial-birth abortion is on the ballot.

Again, this forum is over whether or not conservatives should support the lesser of two evils in this election, not over whether to be conservative in the first place.
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 1:35:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 9:08:36 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Thread - you are trying to keep the threat on point,

Lol!

Welfare-Worker also wrote:
not the forum.

But, but wouldn't it be great if the forum were on point too? Wouldn't want it to be off point, now would we? Lol!
Kilk1
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 8:15:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
All right, it's Election Day. For the sake of the Supreme Court, vote for Donald Trump. We need justices who will interpret the Constitution the way it was meant to be interpreted. If we don't do this now, Hillary Clinton will get to appoint young justices who will be on the court for years, justices that she says will "do" many things, rather than their job, upholding the Constitution.

For the Supreme Court and many other reasons, please, don't hold back your vote from Donald Trump!
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 8:21:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/8/2016 8:15:51 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
All right, it's Election Day. For the sake of the Supreme Court, vote for Donald Trump. We need justices who will interpret the Constitution the way it was meant to be interpreted. If we don't do this now, Hillary Clinton will get to appoint young justices who will be on the court for years, justices that she says will "do" many things, rather than their job, upholding the Constitution.

For the Supreme Court and many other reasons, please, don't hold back your vote from Donald Trump!

I offer you this nugget as well for consideration:

"This Isn"t The Last Election. Hillary Clinton will be an awful president. But chances are that she will be a weak one " and that she"ll run again in four years with a recession on her hands, more corruption scandals on her plate, and a record of failure. She"ll also have to fight a Republican Congress " and a larger Republican contingent in the Senate after 2018. Hillary lost to Obama in 2008 and nearly lost to an old socialist nutcase in 2016 and the most unpopular Republican candidate in history. The chances are solid that she loses in four years. By the same token, the chances that Trump loses in four years are sky-high " and that he blows the Senate in 2018 as well. That means Democrats run someone who isn"t a caricature of corruption and horror and win " someone who will be far more powerful and leftist than Hillary, like Russ Feingold or Kamala Harris. Plus, Trumpism alienates Hispanics, blacks, women, and young people. Not just for this election cycle " for a generation. So the next election, 2020, can either be about Republicans defeating a wounded, hamstrung Hillary Clinton with an actual conservative, or Democrats defeating an unpopular, mediocre-at-best Donald Trump with a hard-core leftist and a leftist majority in Congress."


As a conservative though, I do agree that although Trump is still a horrible candidate, he is the candidate that is closest to conservative values and has an actual (albeit small) chance of winning.
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 8:25:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 7:33:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/29/2016 10:27:02 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
(NOTE: This forum assumes a conservative point of view, dealing with whether or not we should choose the lesser of two evils in an election such as this.)

This presidential cycle isn't a good one. If you agree with me (and the majority of the U.S. population), voting for either of the only viable candidates is choosing between the lesser of two evils. However, I have great concern over the Supreme Court. For example:

- The 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case won with only 5 justices against 4, and the 4 justices that were against Hobby Lobby are still on the court.
- Another decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), allowed the town of Greece, New York to open its monthly board meetings with a prayer, but again the decision was ruled by only 5-4, with the four opposing still on the court. If the number increases by even one, would new justices ban this and more?
- Another decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), upheld banning partial-birth abortion. Yet again, the decision was ruled by only 5-4. Though not all four are still on the court, I can't trust that the ones who are are opposed to reversing the decision. If so, people could abort babies in the 9th month of pregnancy!
- Could the First Amendment be under fire? What if churches get banned from teaching their views because others see it as being "bigoted"? I can see it happening.

Because of all this, the lesser of two evils may need to be voted for! However, of course, the decision is yours.

Thank you,
Kilk1

Out of interest, if you are pro-life, why is it that the focus is on constitutional and legal methods of outlawing the process; rather than undermining the social reasons that cause women to end up seeking abortions?

For example, if you can effectively eliminate Abortion through sex and relationship education, and laws combating poverty; both of which have a positive impact in many other aspects, including overall outlook, long term poverty, teenage pregnancy, etc; why do you even have to bother with trying to attack Abortion legally?

The chances are that social factors will preclude abortion ever being made illegal everywhere, and even if it were, the chances of illegality eliminating abortions is low given history, and has the negative consequences of increasing the health risk to women seeking illegal options.

If you're pro-life, why is it not the case that you try and search for the most effective way of eliminating abortions: which is through significant education, easy access to birth control, and a concerted movement to eradicate poverty.

You'll save the most lives doing things that way, and help the overall health and functioning of society in general.

These are all extremely good points, and as a conservative, I will say our constituencies do a horrible job of arguing against abortion. I personally feel that nearly ANY method which reduces abortions is good. Far too often conservatives feel that unless Roe v. Wade is completely overturned it won't be enough. This is asinine thinking though. Any fight against abortion should certainly include with it a fight against the reasons abortions take place.