Page 18 of 65 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 643

Thread: Why I Voted For Trump...

  1. #171
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,940
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22170
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    The government being against a state run church means no preference for any church, any religion, and monuments in public buildings and schools is showing a preference. Doesn't matter what existed at the time, like slavery was finally corrected in accordance with their Constitutional thought process, so too was any governments role in religions.
    Slavery wasn't unconstitutional Jim.

    And how in the hell do you think they purposefully separated church from state, while simultaneously allowing all of the things you say they were outlawing, like monuments in public buildings, even a church in the capitol building, opening congress with a prayer and having chaplains in government and the military?

  2. #172
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,940
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22170
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    I think I gave explanation for that already. Though the Founding fathers were themselves, mostly christians, just as they were slave holders, they understood that ultimately government could not discriminate in either case. Being that they were mostly christian at the time, they did continue to to discriminate when it came to religion still, even against the warning of the main author of the Constitution, one James Madison. But what they did, and what the Constitution said were two different things in both cases, i.e. with respect to both slavery and religion.
    You are a moron. You think they purposefully wrote stuff into the constitution of the new country, then also purposefully ignored what they just wrote? That would be completely schizophrenic. The only nut here is you. You have such cognitive dissonance that you can't admit you are wrong. So you invent this idea that the founders were schizoids instead.

    Stop smoking the wacky weed, JimL. Your brain has blown a gasket or something.

  3. #173
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,292
    Amen (Given)
    12048
    Amen (Received)
    25705
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Again what does slavery have to do with the separation of Church and State? You just stated two unrelated things, one after the other. Neither of which is true.
    Jim's typical "well, I can't defend what I said, so let's throw something else in the mix".
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  4. #174
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,673
    Amen (Given)
    663
    Amen (Received)
    1467
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    So, going back to (I'm assuming) the original quote from whence cometh all this discord...
    Ok, I'll respond.
    NOT "instead" - the case against abortion is being made every day, and modern science is really kicking abortion's butt. So ya really got THAT part wrong.
    I'm not sure how modern science could possibly kick abortion's butt, unless you mean by pushing the date of foetal viability ever backwards. Ok, it's highlighting the time-line of foetal development and showing the stages at which the brain develops and responsiveness and awareness occur, but the arguments for/against abortion are largely focussed on foetal vs parental rights anyway.

    But ok, I'll accept that there may be a two-pronged approach:
    1) Try to win the game
    2) Replace the referee with one of your own
    And, clearly, judges do not change laws. They don't change laws, they don't change THEM laws, they don't change THE laws.... that's not what judges do.
    I know. I've always known.

    What they do do is determine which laws should be upheld, and which rejected as unconstitutional. Those decisions can change the law. If, for example, a state has a law that prohibits e.g. smoking pot, and judges strike that law down as unconstitutional, then the law has changed* because something that was previously illegal is now legal.**

    you're appointing new judges that already agree with you and who will change the laws regardless of whether there is any reason to do so.
    That's quite an accusation ya got there -- some how, we're going to nominate and confirm dishonest judges with horrible ethics.
    That's right.

    Because if you're not going to appoint judges who make rulings based on their political and religious views rather than on the facts and merits of the cases before them, then what's the point of appointing judges with particular political/religious views? If judges are going to decide cases based purely on facts and law, then you'd expect conservative and liberal judges to reach the same conclusions. The only reason to specifically appoint conservative judges is so that they will decide cases based on their conservatism, not on legal principles.

    It could be argued that the aim is to replace judges that are deciding cases based on liberalism, but that would fail because you wouldn't need to replace them with conservative judges, only unbiased ones.

    Oh, and there have been examples of judges, even SCOTUS ones, producing verdicts based on their religion - such as Scalia and Rehnquist's opinion in Edwards v Aguillard that a law that mandated teaching young earth creationism didn't have a religious purpose.

    That's really over the top, Roy. I mean --- it's like its own whole conspiracy. It's just downright nutty.
    It's the stated strategy.

    1) Vote for Trump, because he will ...
    2) ... appoint conservative judges, who will
    3) ... uphold laws against abortion.


    *By whatever mechanism is used to remove downstruck laws.
    **I am astonished that you and the others do not understand this.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

  5. #175
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,292
    Amen (Given)
    12048
    Amen (Received)
    25705
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    Ok, I'll respond.I'm not sure how modern science could possibly kick abortion's butt, unless you mean by pushing the date of foetal viability ever backwards. Ok, it's highlighting the time-line of foetal development and showing the stages at which the brain develops and responsiveness and awareness occur, but the arguments for/against abortion are largely focussed on foetal vs parental rights anyway.

    But ok, I'll accept that there may be a two-pronged approach:
    1) Try to win the game
    2) Replace the referee with one of your own
    I know. I've always known.

    What they do do is determine which laws should be upheld, and which rejected as unconstitutional. Those decisions can change the law. If, for example, a state has a law that prohibits e.g. smoking pot, and judges strike that law down as unconstitutional, then the law has changed* because something that was previously illegal is now legal.**

    That's right.

    Because if you're not going to appoint judges who make rulings based on their political and religious views rather than on the facts and merits of the cases before them, then what's the point of appointing judges with particular political/religious views? If judges are going to decide cases based purely on facts and law, then you'd expect conservative and liberal judges to reach the same conclusions. The only reason to specifically appoint conservative judges is so that they will decide cases based on their conservatism, not on legal principles.

    It could be argued that the aim is to replace judges that are deciding cases based on liberalism, but that would fail because you wouldn't need to replace them with conservative judges, only unbiased ones.

    Oh, and there have been examples of judges, even SCOTUS ones, producing verdicts based on their religion - such as Scalia and Rehnquist's opinion in Edwards v Aguillard that a law that mandated teaching young earth creationism didn't have a religious purpose.

    It's the stated strategy.

    1) Vote for Trump, because he will ...
    2) ... appoint conservative judges, who will
    3) ... uphold laws against abortion.


    *By whatever mechanism is used to remove downstruck laws.
    **I am astonished that you and the others do not understand this.
    Thanks for taking the time to respond, Roy - I can't do you justice right now (get it?) but I'll return to this later this afternoon.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  6. #176
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,639
    Amen (Given)
    1687
    Amen (Received)
    1471
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    You are a moron. You think they purposefully wrote stuff into the constitution of the new country, then also purposefully ignored what they just wrote? That would be completely schizophrenic. The only nut here is you. You have such cognitive dissonance that you can't admit you are wrong. So you invent this idea that the founders were schizoids instead.

    Stop smoking the wacky weed, JimL. Your brain has blown a gasket or something.
    Already proved that to you in the same post, stupid. "all men are created equal" - yet slavery continued for another 8 decades or so.

  7. #177
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,639
    Amen (Given)
    1687
    Amen (Received)
    1471
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Jim's typical "well, I can't defend what I said, so let's throw something else in the mix".
    No stupid, it's an analogous situation. They wrote one thing, but did another. Their ideals were higher than their actions at the time. Madison himself, the main author of the Constitution warned against any sort of religion in government. And he was a staunch supporter of religious liberty.
    Last edited by JimL; 09-18-2019 at 08:08 AM.

  8. #178
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    25,190
    Amen (Given)
    1737
    Amen (Received)
    5130
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    If judges are going to decide cases based purely on facts and law, then you'd expect conservative and liberal judges to reach the same conclusions. The only reason to specifically appoint conservative judges is so that they will decide cases based on their conservatism, not on legal principles.
    How about judges who decide cases based on the original intent of the writers? We are not looking for conservatives per se, we are looking for originalists.

    In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified. This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment, and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five. This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of the current times, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document.
    So Originalism stands in contrast with the Living Constitution model.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  9. #179
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,292
    Amen (Given)
    12048
    Amen (Received)
    25705
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    No stupid
    This is always a sign that you don't have a valid argument.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  10. #180
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,292
    Amen (Given)
    12048
    Amen (Received)
    25705
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    No stupid, it's an analogous situation. They wrote one thing, but did another. Their ideals were higher than their actions at the time. Madison himself, the main author of the Constitution warned against any sort of religion in government. And he was a staunch supporter of religious liberty.
    Madison was one man, Jimmy. And the "government" had, at its very founding, chaplains and prayers and all manner of religious vestige.

    You seem absolutely determined to wrongly interpret the "wall of separation" -- it is clear to anybody with a function brain that Jefferson was responding to the Danbury Baptist Association's concern that there would be a "national" or "state religion". Jefferson was assuring him there would be religious liberty.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

Posting Permissions

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