We’re winning, also.
Out of curiosity what does the bible say about abortion?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Out of curiosity what does the bible say about abortion?[/quote]
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Not at all. But I think if someone’s going to criticize and get very upset at Santorum then they’d better DAMN WELL get upset at pastor Wright and Obama for the same thing. Otherwise it’s just plain double standard partisanship.
Raj as I recall was a pretty big defender of Obama with that whole pastor thing. He’s swinging a mighty big hypocritical club here when he jumped up to defend Obama.
[/quote]
I wasn’t getting upset, I felt the same way about Obama and the Rev Wright.
Who I voted for was questions immediately in this thread (which I think is pretty childish)[/quote]
Oh I didn’t mean YOU were getting upset. I meant every other person holding this up and screaming about how inappropriate it is. It was a general statement on the hypocrisy being thrown about.
I didn’t question who you voted for. I never even mentioned it…?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I thought this thread was about Pastor Dennis Terry and Santorum not Obama and his affiliations.
What a strange distraction from the thread topic…[/quote]
Actually, it’s not. If the contention is that Santorum’s attendance, and participation with this divisive pastor somehow taints or discredits him for his run on the presidency. Then clearly obama’s affiliation with a divisive and blatantly racist preacher is fair game.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t have a lot of time. It’s a very involved subject. I’ll give it a quick crack:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Declaration of independence is not a legal document. Where in the constitution and the bill of rights does it say the US is a Christian nation?
[/quote]
The founders/framers framed the Constitution around the Declaration of Independence and the principles it espoused. The founders were Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Unitarians and Catholics. Many of the state constitutions required officials to afirm their allegiance to a particular denomination. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, in accordance with “natural law” and “divine providence” protect “unalienable rights” whilst guaranteeing freedom of worship/religion and no state sanctioned denomination.
As Chief Justice William Rehnquist argued in Wallace v Jaffree - “The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build a “wall of separation” that was constitutionalized in Everson( v Board of Education).”
In fact, natural law and God-given unalienable rights are founding principles of the Constitution.
As George Washington wrote in his farewell address:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable results…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” And as Barry Goldwater said in '64 - “those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.”
See above.[/quote]
Many of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature’s God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible.
[/quote]
Some of the founders were deists almost all were decidedly Christian.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You are making the mistake that most lefty’s make when looking back on slavery. And that is you have the value of perspective, that is great distance between what we live today and what they lived for their entire lives. At the time many were against slavery but it was ingrained in the system. And many still spoke out against it and recieved threats and intimidation for their efforts. [/quote]
And the fact that they personally owned slaves would have me question how much conviction they actually had in those beliefs.
“I’m against prostitution but I fuck a prostitute everyday”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But, no you don’t understand that. All you understand is (starry eyed look) “SLAVERY IS WRONG!”
Yeah no shit.[/quote]
Exactly, they’re a product of their time. So why worry about what any of them have to say when considering matters of today?[/quote]
And today the secularists support taking the lives of humans in the womb.
[/quote]
Also in today’s news a bunch of men decided they should be able to tell a woman (ya know the one that has to carry and deliver) what she needs to do with her own body because of their moral opinion…[/quote]
So you’re still part of your mother’s body? Weird.
And all this time science tells us it’s a separate person. Science is so stupid.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Out of curiosity what does the bible say about abortion?[/quote]
The whole ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ was actually to be applied to the harming pregnant women or their child, not for any and every crime as some people posit.
Second, the 5 commandment is ‘You shall not kill’. Biblically speaking, abortion is condemned.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You are making the mistake that most lefty’s make when looking back on slavery. And that is you have the value of perspective, that is great distance between what we live today and what they lived for their entire lives. At the time many were against slavery but it was ingrained in the system. And many still spoke out against it and recieved threats and intimidation for their efforts. [/quote]
And the fact that they personally owned slaves would have me question how much conviction they actually had in those beliefs.
“I’m against prostitution but I fuck a prostitute everyday”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But, no you don’t understand that. All you understand is (starry eyed look) “SLAVERY IS WRONG!”
Yeah no shit.[/quote]
Exactly, they’re a product of their time. So why worry about what any of them have to say when considering matters of today?[/quote]
And today the secularists support taking the lives of humans in the womb.
[/quote]
That does not even make sense.
Lets separate church and state ------> lets do some abortions!
Yay!
Kind of a shitty rallying call and rather divisive I would imagine…[/quote]
Do you think murder should be a crime, or should it be a choice?
If we’re going to be consistent, it should be a choice.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You are making the mistake that most lefty’s make when looking back on slavery. And that is you have the value of perspective, that is great distance between what we live today and what they lived for their entire lives. At the time many were against slavery but it was ingrained in the system. And many still spoke out against it and recieved threats and intimidation for their efforts. [/quote]
And the fact that they personally owned slaves would have me question how much conviction they actually had in those beliefs.
“I’m against prostitution but I fuck a prostitute everyday”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But, no you don’t understand that. All you understand is (starry eyed look) “SLAVERY IS WRONG!”
Yeah no shit.[/quote]
Exactly, they’re a product of their time. So why worry about what any of them have to say when considering matters of today?[/quote]
And today the secularists support taking the lives of humans in the womb.
[/quote]
That does not even make sense.
Lets separate church and state ------> lets do some abortions!
Yay!
Kind of a shitty rallying call and rather divisive I would imagine…[/quote]
Do you think murder should be a crime, or should it be a choice?
If we’re going to be consistent, it should be a choice.[/quote]
Ah the false continuum fallacy.
I am sorry, but this is ad hominem week.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Also in today’s news a bunch of men…[/quote]
Btw, this is a bogus stereotype of who is pro-life, or at least much closer to pro-life than ‘pro-choice.’ The pro-life position is basically identical among men and women.
[/quote]
Actually it is a more accurate reflection of who would be voting on and turning the issue into law
" In the House, there are currently 362 men and 76 women. In the Senate, there are 17 women and 83 men. "
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Also in today’s news a bunch of men…[/quote]
Btw, this is a bogus stereotype of who is pro-life, or at least much closer to pro-life than ‘pro-choice.’ The pro-life position is basically identical among men and women.
[/quote]
Actually it is a more accurate reflection of who would be voting on and turning the issue into law
" In the House, there are currently 362 men and 76 women. In the Senate, there are 17 women and 83 men. "
[/quote]
They would only be reflecting the mood and will of the public, where women are basically identical to men as far as being pro-life goes.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ll use the number system for you:
- I don’t “discount” any of the founding father’s beliefs. However, it should be obvious even to you that somehow (MAGIC I TELL YOU!!) that this nation turned into a Christian nation. Are ya thinkin it wuz sum sorta coinky dinky? LOL[/quote]
Okay, so then you admit it wasn’t the founding fathers intention to make the nation a Christian nation, it just so happens many of them happen to be Christian.[/quote]
Dumb, or just not engaged today? I never said such a thing.
Majority and history of majority.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
- While the Christianity of some (a few get it? Not many) were in question just about every one of them believed in God.
You have no point run along.
Great, but the point was it wasn’t necessarily the Christian god.[/quote]
Most were Christian…what are you looking for? Oh never mind I know you’d like to rewrite history in to your inane secular leftist view point.
Oh darn–YOU CAN’T DO IT.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Not at all. But I think if someone’s going to criticize and get very upset at Santorum then they’d better DAMN WELL get upset at pastor Wright and Obama for the same thing. Otherwise it’s just plain double standard partisanship.
Raj as I recall was a pretty big defender of Obama with that whole pastor thing. He’s swinging a mighty big hypocritical club here when he jumped up to defend Obama.
[/quote]
I wasn’t getting upset, I felt the same way about Obama and the Rev Wright.
Who I voted for was questions immediately in this thread (which I think is pretty childish)[/quote]
Oh I didn’t mean YOU were getting upset. I meant every other person holding this up and screaming about how inappropriate it is. It was a general statement on the hypocrisy being thrown about.
I didn’t question who you voted for. I never even mentioned it…?[/quote]
Who was screaming about this?
Really…who were the people who were “screaming?”
Looking at legal in only a few circumstances and none;
Men, 61%. Women? 60%
Elective abortion on demand (few to no restrictions)
Men, 36%. Women, 37%.
Not a lopsided gender issue by any stretch of the imagination.
By the way, women actually beat out men in the ‘illegal in all circumstances’ category, by 6.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Majority and history of majority.[/quote]
Ooooooooooooooooooooooh so that’s how it works.
Well you’re a predominately white nation.
Wait a second you’re also 51% female.
So how about a white female christian nation? Does that sound good to you madam?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Most were Christian…what are you looking for? Oh never mind I know you’d like to rewrite history in to your inane secular leftist view point.
Oh darn–YOU CAN’T DO IT.
[/quote]
My contention is that the US is not a Christian nation, instead a secular nation full of Christians.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Majority and history of majority.
Ooooooooooooooooooooooh so that’s how it works.
Well you’re a predominately white nation.
Wait a second you’re also 51% female.
So how about a white female christian nation? Does that sound good to you madam?[/quote]
Not falling for the gender card (eye roll).
And yes, that’s how it works. But to a secular leftist like you I know it doesn’t work that way.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Most were Christian…what are you looking for? Oh never mind I know you’d like to rewrite history in to your inane secular leftist view point.
Oh darn–YOU CAN’T DO IT.
My contention is that the US is not a Christian nation, instead a nation full of Christians.
[/quote]
Yeah? Well that’s a nice contention you have there. My neighbor’s nephew contends that he’s George Washington. He also rides around on a bicycle with a bright red antenna.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
ANd also SM said only Jefferson and maybe Franklin were non-Christians, which is untrue.
[/quote]
No, I said they were the only deists of which I am aware.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Absolutely. The majority of the founders were against slavery - even many who were slave owners. The constitution is an anti-slavery document. The three-fifths compromise was about represenative power in the U.S. HoR. The unalienable rights of all men of all faiths and creeds are proclamed in the declaration and the constitution.[/quote]
If they owned slaves, they clearly weren’t all that against slavery.[/quote]
No, that’s not clear at all. I suggest you actually read about the period in question. I know you’re smarter than all the founding fathers and you’ve got a better constitution/bill of rights you figured out yourself and all that. But you really need to actually know something about a subject before you can develop an opinion worth expressing.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
My contention is that the US is not a Christian nation, instead a secular nation full of Christians.
[/quote]
What works have you read on the period in question? I’m sure your contentions are based on a great deal of study right?