I'm obviously speaking as a voter. Do you think I'm secretly a senator on the judicial committee?
Advertisement
by Hakons » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:42 pm
by Hakons » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:45 pm
by El-Amin Caliphate » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:45 pm
https://americanvision.org/948/theonomy-vs-theocracy/ wrote:God’s law cannot govern a nation where God’s law does not rule in the hearts of the people
Plaetopia wrote:Partly Free / Hybrid regime (score 4-6) El-Amin Caliphate (5.33)
by Conserative Morality » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:46 pm
Hakons wrote:"Secular liberal democracy" is largely a modern term.
For the majority of U.S. history, American government was referred to as republicanism. The "secular liberal democracy" crowd is a lot different than American values have historically been.
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach [Islam] to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest.
In this enlightened age, & in this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.
by Conserative Morality » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:48 pm
Hakons wrote:I'm obviously speaking as a voter. Do you think I'm secretly a senator on the judicial committee?
by Vassenor » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:48 pm
Hakons wrote:Neutraligon wrote:I think this form of questioning was supposed to be getting at if they will be impartial.
If that is the case, the senator should ask if they will separate their religious views from their judicial rulings. The nominee will roll their eyes and say yes because it's a stupid question that gets nowhere. Still, that's better than listing Catholic beliefs that are supposedly scary and dangerous and asking for them to renounce such beliefs.
by Conserative Morality » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:51 pm
Vassenor wrote:Hakons wrote:
If that is the case, the senator should ask if they will separate their religious views from their judicial rulings. The nominee will roll their eyes and say yes because it's a stupid question that gets nowhere. Still, that's better than listing Catholic beliefs that are supposedly scary and dangerous and asking for them to renounce such beliefs.
I mean that's what certain conservatives expect Muslims to do, so we're kind of doing turnabout here.
by Conserative Morality » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:54 pm
by Hakons » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:57 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Hakons wrote:"Secular liberal democracy" is largely a modern term.
For what has been our traditional form of government.For the majority of U.S. history, American government was referred to as republicanism. The "secular liberal democracy" crowd is a lot different than American values have historically been.
Yes, the Founding Fathers never would have said anything likeThe legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach [Islam] to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest.
In this enlightened age, & in this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.
by Conserative Morality » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:58 pm
Hakons wrote:Projecting modern definitions into the past is certainly a favorite pastime of liberals (especially when it comes to judicial opinions I might add). Why not call them by what they called themselves? If you were to ask an American before 1940 what kind of government they had, I don't think they would respond with "secular liberal democracy." It's pretentious and just historically wrong to say that's what America has been, especially when those three words have different meanings and attached political opinions now than they did then.
Those quotes aren't an endorsement of your views, you know. Those are all quotes supporting the secular notion that the government shouldn't interfere in the religious lives of citizens. That's why they banned religious tests and why I'm arguing against religious tests. They can hardly be construed to support "secular liberal democracy" when nothing of the sort is confessed.
Here's a nice article, though rather long, that gets at what I'm trying to say.
by Hakons » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:00 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Hakons wrote:I'm obviously speaking as a voter. Do you think I'm secretly a senator on the judicial committee?
Why does that matter? The individual in question was allowed to run for office. The representatives of the people were allowed to question him according to their values.
by Hakons » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:02 pm
Vassenor wrote:Hakons wrote:
If that is the case, the senator should ask if they will separate their religious views from their judicial rulings. The nominee will roll their eyes and say yes because it's a stupid question that gets nowhere. Still, that's better than listing Catholic beliefs that are supposedly scary and dangerous and asking for them to renounce such beliefs.
I mean that's what certain conservatives expect Muslims to do, so we're kind of doing turnabout here.
by Conserative Morality » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:06 pm
Hakons wrote:Obviously, as I hope you would know too, voters are allowed to vote however they want.
Public officials are constricted some by ant-discrimination laws. A senator can't vote against a nominee based on their gender nor could they vote against them based on a religious test.
by Hakons » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:07 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Can't wait to make the next person in charge of Federal antidiscrimination laws someone who thinks Yacoub the mad genetic scientist made white people 7,000 years ago in defiance of God's will or someshit because it's a religious belief.
Conserative Morality wrote:Hakons wrote:Projecting modern definitions into the past is certainly a favorite pastime of liberals (especially when it comes to judicial opinions I might add). Why not call them by what they called themselves? If you were to ask an American before 1940 what kind of government they had, I don't think they would respond with "secular liberal democracy." It's pretentious and just historically wrong to say that's what America has been, especially when those three words have different meanings and attached political opinions now than they did then.
Those quotes aren't an endorsement of your views, you know. Those are all quotes supporting the secular notion that the government shouldn't interfere in the religious lives of citizens. That's why they banned religious tests and why I'm arguing against religious tests. They can hardly be construed to support "secular liberal democracy" when nothing of the sort is confessed.
Here's a nice article, though rather long, that gets at what I'm trying to say.
"I don't like those words therefore they're not correct despite meeting the exact definition"
10/10, keep up that persecution complex. I know it's a religious belief, and I'm not allowed to question that.
by Conserative Morality » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:12 pm
Hakons wrote:I must say, you do make a fine religious bigot. This isn't really related to anything, but I'm glad you got your biases in the open.
That's just a awful rebuttal devoid of any argument or effort. Words have meaning when people right them, and you don't project your concept of words onto that of the past.
Case in point, modern secularists are disgusted by natural law while 1700s secularists proclaimed that all law should be based in the natural law created by God.
I... didn't mention anything about Christian persecution. That's a crappy joke, but please continue.
by Hakons » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:13 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Hakons wrote:Obviously, as I hope you would know too, voters are allowed to vote however they want.
But public officials can only vote according to the will of the Church.Public officials are constricted some by ant-discrimination laws. A senator can't vote against a nominee based on their gender nor could they vote against them based on a religious test.
It wasn't a test. It was a question of beliefs, no more nor less appropriate than asking "Do you believe in the Constitution?"
by The Chuck » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:16 pm
USS Monitor wrote:For the most part, this trend is just a sign of improving the balance of power between Christians and everyone else. Christians (as a group, not necessarily every individual personally) have been shitting on everyone else in America since before the US even existed, and it's a good thing that people are starting to push back more.
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
by Conserative Morality » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:17 pm
Hakons wrote:The Church gives considerable leeway on how Catholic politicians may vote, but I do agree that it is regrettable that Church discipline isn't used when "Catholic" politicians vote against philosophy that is fundamental to being Catholic. You also absurdly shifted to Church policy, which makes for a nice game of dodging.
Questioning Catholic beliefs is a religious test against Catholicism. The nominee didn't renounce them so the senator didn't for him. A nominee cannot be required to renounce religious beliefs before congress.
by Hakons » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:26 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Hakons wrote:I must say, you do make a fine religious bigot. This isn't really related to anything, but I'm glad you got your biases in the open.
I'm glad that you support the Nation Of Islam discriminating against white people because it's a religious belief. Good thing that religion in general and not just Christianity in America is shrinking, else you might have to actually suffer the consequences of your actions, and that would be awful.That's just a awful rebuttal devoid of any argument or effort. Words have meaning when people right them, and you don't project your concept of words onto that of the past.
So If I was to, say, find contemporary definitions of all of those words that match the modern definitions you would concede the point and not try to weasel your way out in order to continue this charade of believing that the evil secular liberal democrats are a modern invention and not what this country was founded on?Case in point, modern secularists are disgusted by natural law while 1700s secularists proclaimed that all law should be based in the natural law created by God.
"Modern secularists are disgusted by natural law"
[citation needed]I... didn't mention anything about Christian persecution. That's a crappy joke, but please continue.
Literally the whole point of your OP. Jesus Christ.
by Hakons » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:30 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Hakons wrote:The Church gives considerable leeway on how Catholic politicians may vote, but I do agree that it is regrettable that Church discipline isn't used when "Catholic" politicians vote against philosophy that is fundamental to being Catholic. You also absurdly shifted to Church policy, which makes for a nice game of dodging.
"I regret that Church discipline isn't used to make public officials violate their oaths of office and the laws of the land because it makes me feel better"
Thank you for revealing your true colors for everyone to see. You're a caricature of a Catholic right out of the mid-1850s.Questioning Catholic beliefs is a religious test against Catholicism. The nominee didn't renounce them so the senator didn't for him. A nominee cannot be required to renounce religious beliefs before congress.
Okay, like I said then, can't wait until we get ourselves a nice evangie who believes that Catholics are literally Satan and heretics and should be killed, and questioning that will be verboten, because it's a religious belief. You can't make someone renounce wanting to kill people. That's religion, and that's protected.
by LiberNovusAmericae » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:31 pm
by Conserative Morality » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:31 pm
Hakons wrote:My comment was to your absurdism about suddenly making fun of fundamentalism. It's just gross to look at, since presumably that's your internalized view of Christians.
The country wasn't founded on "secular liberal democracy." That founders wrote extensively, and I challenge you to find them write that nauseating three-word soundbite that is now oh so popular. The founders were obviously secular, but if you would actually read them you would realize they have a deep respect for religion, with nearly all of them being religious themselves. You, like modern secularists, don't have any respect for religion. The founders were definitely liberal, but you and I both know liberalism had a different meaning, at least policy wise. As an example, today's liberals want to constrict gun ownership while yesteryear's placed gun ownership as important as free speech and religious freedom. To say the founders obviously supported democracy is probably the grossest claim here. They supported republicanism, with representative government. Many of them wrote quite a lot against the perceived mob rule of democracy.
by Page » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:40 pm
by LiberNovusAmericae » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:54 pm
Hakons wrote:The founders were obviously secular, but if you would actually read them you would realize they have a deep respect for religion, with nearly all of them being religious themselves.
Hakons wrote:The founders were definitely liberal, but you and I both know liberalism had a different meaning, at least policy wise. As an example, today's liberals want to constrict gun ownership while yesteryear's placed gun ownership as important as free speech and religious freedom. To say the founders obviously supported democracy is probably the grossest claim here. They supported republicanism, with representative government. Many of them wrote quite a lot against the perceived mob rule of democracy.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
Thomas Jefferson wrote: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.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
by Ifreann » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:32 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Duvniask, Elejamie, Ethel mermania, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Google [Bot], Kannap, Kaumudeen, Kerwa, Kreushia, Three Galaxies, Uiiop, Valrifall, Zurkerx
Advertisement