[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
<<< What is it that makes “liberalism” irreconcilable with Christianity, Trib? >>>[/quote]
I knew I was wasting my time. I should know better.
Uh, I’d like to clarify that my questions are out of curiosity. I’m not making any claim about anyone’s Christianity. I ask only because after seeing this issue raised, I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen your opinions on such matters. These are a couple of issues for me, on which a person’s stance would say a lot.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Uh, I’d like to clarify that my questions are out of curiosity. I’m not making any claim about anyone’s Christianity. I ask only because after seeing this issue raised, I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen your opinions on such matters. These are a couple of issues for me, on which a person’s stance would say a lot.[/quote]
He pushed me into answering him and then pushed me into telling him why. The Bible is the ultimate source of Christian definitions. When interpreted in a historico exegetical manner, meaning find out what it meant to the people alive at the time whatever part in question was written, or written about and then apply that principle to contemporary times, it is everywhere an unerring condemnation of modern liberalism. Liberalism, not democrat-ism. Even their fruity pseudo compassionate “care for the poor” crap is hideous butchery of the message.
Whatever cannot be found either in plain declaration or necessarily deduced inference with all parts interpreting each other, is unbiblical. In that light, regardless of misunderstandings about “judge not lest you be judged”, we are told that while no man can be absolutely certain whether another is “a Christian” it can be discerned quite readily whether someone is not.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
What is it that makes “liberalism” irreconcilable with Christianity, Trib?
[/quote]
I dunno…might be because it relies on the premise that institutionalized violation of one of the basic, unchanging laws of Christianity (thou shall not steal) is acceptable as long as it is institutionalized?
OR could be because all of those people wanting to institutionalize that other sin wish to do so because they are violating another basic, unchanging law: thou shall not covet.
Here is today’s continuation on the debt. I’m still playing the bitrates and quality settings finding a balance between that and streamability.
http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/index.php/topic,103.new.html#new
Edit: I AM A MORON!!!
This is what happens when I get in a hurry. I posted the link to the post dialog and not the completed post. Fixed
Part 3… again sorta.
http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/index.php/topic,103.new.html#new
hey, push. can you tell me what you mean when you say that you want to return to the constitution? i’m asking this out of genuine curiosity, because that phrase is being thrown around pretty frequently these days. thanks.
as far as intellectualism is concerned, the fact that conservatives have largely lost control of America’s elite institutions of higher learning may have some bearing on this discussion. there are a few survivors, but the Allan Blooms are gone.
[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
hey, push. can you tell me what you mean when you say that you want to return to the constitution? i’m asking this out of genuine curiosity, because that phrase is being thrown around pretty frequently these days. thanks.
as far as intellectualism is concerned, the fact that conservatives have largely lost control of America’s elite institutions of higher learning may have some bearing on this discussion. there are a few survivors, but the Allan Blooms are gone. [/quote]
I don’t really have the energy anymore for arguing specifics, so I won’t. But, I’ll just illustrate what we’re facing by sharing an article. Ask yourself what the role of government (a burden on us) should be. Should it be so massive, with so many tentacles, with so much ability to tax, spend, run a debt, and even fiddle with credit and money? Should we reclaim self governance and self-reliance as our birth right?
In ten years our government will pay interest on our debt equal to the federal expense this year for Iraq and Afghanistan, education, energy, and homeland security. Just to pay interest in 2019…Then add the looming crises as the boomers move into Social Security and Medicare. Then add whatever new entitlement obligations politicians will come up with to buy off voting blocs.
[quote]John Adams wrote:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.[/quote]
Nothing we do will make any significant and lasting difference unless we relearn this lesson.
the supreme court, the nation’s highest constitutional authority, has ruled that many of the arguments of the constitution party platform simply aren’t accurate interpretations. for instance, the party cites james madison in the section entitled The Costs of Big Gov’t saying that the federal gov’t powers are few and defined.
From McCulloch v. Maryland to Gonzalez v. Raich, the court has ruled that there most certainly are unenumerated powers. i.e. the power to establish a national bank is the implied unenumerated power emanating from the enumerated power to tax. the ability to regulate personal marijuana cultivation is extends from the power to regulate interstate commerce. i feel this is a response to what Sloth most recently posted.
There is also a section of the party platform denying the expressed power of congress in article V of the constitution to call a convention. i had no idea the constitution party was in the business of ignoring whole articles of the document.
On conscription, in cases where individuals tried to disrupt the draft, the Supreme Court never once recognized a due process/liberty claim.
The platform argues further that the 17th amendment took the power of election of senators away from state legislatures and put it in the people’s hands, thereby removing an important check on congress. i don’t know about you, but i prefer the power to be in the rightful leaders of this nation, the american people.
Tribulus, I will not take lessons on morality from slaveholders, but either way, the constitution protects the right to have no religion at all; that is what the establishment and free exercise clauses are for and the court has affirmed this on numerous occasions. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who called for a Wall of Separation between church and state.
[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
the supreme court, the nation’s highest constitutional authority…[/quote]
There is much to dispute in your post, but rather than go line by line, we’ll start with your basic premise above, which is not correct. The Supreme Court is not and never has been “the nation’s highest constitutional authority”.
I am not here to defend the Constitution Party’s platform - haven’t read it, and I am not a member - but your approach suffers from two major flaws: (1) that the Supreme Court is a “superior” when it is simply “co-equal”, and (2) that the Supreme Court can’t be wrong.
to push: it might sound weird to say this, but ,for all intents and purposes, the court is not wrong until it, later, says it is wrong. they are not infallible, but what they say goes until they later decide it no longer “goes.”
to thunderbolt: the court is not co-equal in determining what the constitution means: “it is emphatically the province of this court to say what the law is” John Marshall Marbury v. Madison. you’ll probably say that this is just the court’s interpretation. well, the simple fact is that congress and the executive have and continue to recognize the doctrine of judicial review.
i concede, however, that your 17th amendment discussion is interesting and worthy of healthy debate.
[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
to thunderbolt: the court is not co-equal in determining what the constitution means: “it is emphatically the province of this court to say what the law is” John Marshall Marbury v. Madison. you’ll probably say that this is just the court’s interpretation. well, the simple fact is that congress and the executive have and continue to recognize the doctrine of judicial review. [/quote]
I am not disputing judicial review.
Here is your problem laid bare: the Constitution prohibits grants of nobility and title by Congress. If Congress decided tomorrow that Obama deserved a title of nobility in opposition to the Constitution, would exactly would the Supreme Court do about it?
Congress has decided the grant of title is constitutional. The Executive Branch accepts it, ratifying its approval of the move. If the Supreme Court is “superior” to these two branches, what does the Supreme Court do to make it right?
[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
the supreme court, the nation’s highest constitutional authority, has ruled that many of the arguments of the constitution party platform simply aren’t accurate interpretations. for instance, the party cites james madison in the section entitled The Costs of Big Gov’t saying that the federal gov’t powers are few and defined.
From McCulloch v. Maryland to Gonzalez v. Raich, the court has ruled that there most certainly are unenumerated powers. i.e. the power to establish a national bank is the implied unenumerated power emanating from the enumerated power to tax. the ability to regulate personal marijuana cultivation is extends from the power to regulate interstate commerce. i feel this is a response to what Sloth most recently posted.
[/quote]
“Implied unenumerated powers” means pretty much anything and everything. And we’re going to find out the hard way where that gets us when our government, with it’s implied unenumerated powers, can barely cover debt interest, meet some entitlement obligations, and nothing else.
thunderbolt: i don’t intend to be rude but your example is absurd. obama adopting a title of nobility…really?
sloth: you’re right that the unenumerated powers game is a slippery slope, however, the problem is that it can’t be thrown out, because, for instance, the right to vote is found nowhere expressly in the constitution; it is incidental to obtaining a government chosen “by the people.” This of course is a similar line of reasoning to the one used in McCulloch and reused in subsequent similar cases.
push: you’re absolutely right. we’re simply arguing two sides of a two-century-old ideological debate. i’m actually really glad to have the chance to e-talk with you, because you are arguing this with far more eloquence than many of like-minded politicians.
[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
thunderbolt: i don’t intend to be rude but your example is absurd. obama adopting a title of nobility…really? [/quote]
It is a hypothetical using a constitutional provision to make a point - not an indication that I think such a thing is underway.