Should America Elect a Polytheist?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]reidnez wrote:

“God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.”

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”

-John Adams

[/quote]

Sorry, Ace Ventura, but you fucked up here big time. Adams never said those thing. You get the Dunce of the Day award.

Adams was actually one of the most devout Christians in American history.[b]

Spurious quotations:

Statements which evidence indicates are fabrications; in these cases they seem derived from some which are known to have been made by Adams, but have significant alterations and additions.

:slight_smile:

142

[quote]reidnez wrote:
Wow, lots of hostility on here. Is it really that intolerable to entertain a conflicting point of view? I actually do like discussing religion, with thoughtful people. I have some close friends who are deeply religious (but not dogmatic) and I very much enjoy learning from them.

I meant that religion ought to be private, not that it is. I’m fully aware that it’s public. I simply don’t understand why many of those of faith see fit to force their brand of belief into all facets of life. Why does religion have to be in school and carved into public buildings? Why does a candidate’s faith matter? If I as an atheist can vote for a professed Christian (since I don’t have much choice), why can’t a Christian vote for a professed Buddhist or Muslim or atheist? Freedom of religion means all religion, not just yours. And that also means the ability to be free from religion, should one choose.[/quote]

Yes, and you seem to lack the understanding of the end of goal. You’re advocating a lack of tolerance in the name of tolerance. Get rid of all religion so that we can feel tolerated. Instead of tolerating a man that has a crucifix in his office we demand that he take it down so that we will feel tolerated. That is backwards.

It doesn’t have to be in school or carved in public buildings, but saying it “can’t” isn’t tolerant. And, no one makes you participate in religion. When was the last time you were forced to prostrate before the Eucharist or pray before a class lesson?

When was the last time I was forced to remove a crucifix from my body, not make the sign of the cross, not pray with my team before a football game, not kiss my St. Christopher medal before a field event, and refrain from saying “God bless and Godspeed”? All within the last 2-3 years.

I have tolerance for people living out their faith or lack of faith, but people seem to have a hard time tolerating me trying to live out my faith. I protested Norway (or whoever it was) when they were trying to ban the Burka, that is religious intolerance. It’s not religious tolerance to demand that Muslim women only wear burkas in Mosques and their homes.

[quote]Thomas Jefferson
[/quote]

Thomas Jefferson also advocated Regicide, forgive me for my initial hesitance to accepting quotes of a man that praised the murder of a man and a Christian king in the name of freedom.

143

Kolbe now huh Chris? I’ll leave that alone for now. =] Yes. I know his story.

144

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Thomas Jefferson also advocated Regicide, forgive me for my initial hesitance to accepting quotes of a man that praised the murder of a man and a Christian king in the name of freedom.[/quote]

Kings?

You mean the English ones?

Am I supposed to take these Johnny come latelies seriously?

145

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Thomas Jefferson also advocated Regicide, forgive me for my initial hesitance to accepting quotes of a man that praised the murder of a man and a Christian king in the name of freedom.[/quote]

Kings?

You mean the English ones?

Am I supposed to take these Johnny come latelies seriously?

[/quote]

I’m not getting your last comment. Or your Second one…

146

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Kolbe now huh Chris? I’ll leave that alone for now. =] Yes. I know his story. [/quote]

No go ahead and speak your mind on a Martyr.

147

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Kolbe now huh Chris? I’ll leave that alone for now. =] Yes. I know his story. [/quote]

No go ahead and speak your mind on a Martyr.[/quote] Nah.

148

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Kolbe now huh Chris? I’ll leave that alone for now. =] Yes. I know his story. [/quote]

No go ahead and speak your mind on a Martyr.[/quote] Nah.
[/quote]

Uh, okay.

149

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Thomas Jefferson also advocated Regicide, forgive me for my initial hesitance to accepting quotes of a man that praised the murder of a man and a Christian king in the name of freedom.[/quote]
Sounds like a great idea to me. I think dissecting the Pope while he is still alive is a great idea too. We should be able to find some evidence of this extra dimensional God-to-Human walkie talkie, he thinks he has. Then we package it an mass market, and let everyone be Pope.

150

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Thomas Jefferson also advocated Regicide, forgive me for my initial hesitance to accepting quotes of a man that praised the murder of a man and a Christian king in the name of freedom.[/quote]

Kings?

You mean the English ones?

Am I supposed to take these Johnny come latelies seriously?

[/quote]

Charlemagne took Offa seriously enough to treat with him on equal terms. Of great monarchs alone the English can boast Alfred the Great, Wiliam the Conqueror, Henry Plantagenet, Coeur de Lion, John, Elizabeth I, William of Orange etc etc The Habsburgs by contrast only ever produced ONE personage of great merit(Charles V) and they became notorious for aquiring territory via marriage.

151

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
With Bachmann and Perry this is what you can expect:

[/quote]

Weird, since it’s what we got with obama… Besides you don’t live here why do you give a shit. Holland and the rest of the EU has it’s own mega, major economic issues right now…You really need to take care of your own business before you worry about ares…
It’s not like you get a vote. But I do.[/quote]

It’s what started with Bush, continued with Obama and if the american people are really so stupid as to elect either of these clowns, it is where this all ends. Don’t tell me this doesn’t concern me. As long as the US feels compelled to meddle in foreign affairs, everything the US does affects and concerns me.

152

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Thomas Jefferson also advocated Regicide, forgive me for my initial hesitance to accepting quotes of a man that praised the murder of a man and a Christian king in the name of freedom.[/quote]

Kings?

You mean the English ones?

Am I supposed to take these Johnny come latelies seriously?

[/quote]

Charlemagne took Offa seriously enough to treat with him on equal terms. Of great monarchs alone the English can boast Alfred the Great, Wiliam the Conqueror, Henry Plantagenet, Coeur de Lion, John, Elizabeth I, William of Orange etc etc The Habsburgs by contrast only ever produced ONE personage of great merit(Charles V) and they became notorious for aquiring territory via marriage.[/quote]

They eat, piss and shit and if you stick something sharp into them, they bleed.

This whole, ohhhhh Kings, is annoying.

153

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Thomas Jefferson also advocated Regicide, forgive me for my initial hesitance to accepting quotes of a man that praised the murder of a man and a Christian king in the name of freedom.[/quote]

Kings?

You mean the English ones?

Am I supposed to take these Johnny come latelies seriously?

[/quote]

Charlemagne took Offa seriously enough to treat with him on equal terms. Of great monarchs alone the English can boast Alfred the Great, Wiliam the Conqueror, Henry Plantagenet, Coeur de Lion, John, Elizabeth I, William of Orange etc etc The Habsburgs by contrast only ever produced ONE personage of great merit(Charles V) and they became notorious for aquiring territory via marriage.[/quote]

They eat, piss and shit and if you stick something sharp into them, they bleed.

This whole, ohhhhh Kings, is annoying. [/quote]

I agree. I might just be a dumb USA spic, and not ‘understand’ thed culture of those who felate men w titles…but I fail to see the difference between a king and heridtary dictators. They seem to me like the original Jong Ils of the world. When Jefferson favored regicide I believe that is what he was referring to…the divine right, hemopholiac parasites of old Europe. Charlemagne was a man like Napoleon in a way, he WAS the of a Chief but his glory and empire were his own and he ruled with popular consent. Men like napoleon and charlemagne do not get their greatness from ‘kinghood’ but rather got their kinghood through greatness. Other kings in dynastic lines who were exemplary were purely icidental, their greatness was not crreated by monarchy, indeed, more in exception to it.

154

On a side note, Coeur de Lion was an unbelievably shit king.

155

[quote]Bambi wrote:
On a side note, Coeur de Lion was an unbelievably shit king. [/quote]

All monarchs were in those days. By ‘great merit’ I meant ‘virtue’ in the classical sense. Like Cromwell he was a ‘brave, bad man’. I wouldn’t quite agree with Churchill but I will echo his sentiment that he(Richard) is ‘worthy, by the consent of all men, to sit with King Arthur and Roland and other heroes of martial romance at some Eternal Round Table, which we trust the Creator of the Universe in His comprehension will not have forgotten to provide.’

156

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
On a side note, Coeur de Lion was an unbelievably shit king. [/quote]

All monarchs were in those days. By ‘great merit’ I meant ‘virtue’ in the classical sense. Like Cromwell he was a ‘brave, bad man’. I wouldn’t quite agree with Churchill but I will echo his sentiment that he(Richard) is ‘worthy, by the consent of all men, to sit with King Arthur and Roland and other heroes of martial romance at some Eternal Round Table, which we trust the Creator of the Universe in His comprehension will not have forgotten to provide.’[/quote]

Disagree. Ruled the country for a grand total of 6months out of 10 years. His ransom beggared the country. And the third crusade was an unmitigated failure.

Great monarchs… hmmm… Alfred, Athelstan, Cnut, Henry I, Henry II, Henry VII, Elizabeth I, Charles II, Victoria and the current Elizabeth. But that’s just my opinion

157

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I confess I didn’t watch the video, but I chased down the outfit that posted the video and the whole site is in Portuguese. Sorry, I should have watched it first. I would’ve recognized Latin though I don’t know it. At some point you and I will probably be baptized by proxy in some LDS temple somewhere as well =] I hope I get Kirtland, but I’m not sure if it’s anything but a museum anymore.
[/quote]

Kirtland isn’t owned by the LDS Church. it’s owned by the Community of Christ now. Aside from that, Baptisms for the dead were never practiced there- it was a preparatory temple that was more of an all-purpose meetinghouse.

158

I mostly agree with your list but I probably wouldn’t include Charles II(I know Jacobite sources are very flattering.) Not sure I would describe the Third Crusade as an ‘unmitigated failure’ either.

159

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I mostly agree with your list but I probably wouldn’t include Charles II(I know Jacobite sources are very flattering.) Not sure I would describe the Third Crusade as an ‘unmitigated failure’ either.[/quote]

Charles II - considering the bloodshed that ‘could’ have happened in his reign, I think he deserves to be on there.

Third Crusade - failure though feel free to debate this with me on another thread or via PM

Actually if I could take one person off that list it’d probably be Elizabeth I. heresy I know.

160

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
With Bachmann and Perry this is what you can expect:

[/quote]

Weird, since it’s what we got with obama… Besides you don’t live here why do you give a shit. Holland and the rest of the EU has it’s own mega, major economic issues right now…You really need to take care of your own business before you worry about ares…
It’s not like you get a vote. But I do.[/quote]

It’s what started with Bush, continued with Obama and if the american people are really so stupid as to elect either of these clowns, it is where this all ends. Don’t tell me this doesn’t concern me. As long as the US feels compelled to meddle in foreign affairs, everything the US does affects and concerns me.
[/quote]

Are you insinuating that The U.S. meddles, but the E.U. does not? Collectively the EU is a bigger economy and it’s sucking ass too. Don’t go putting it all on us. I don’t see the EU kicking any kind of economic ass either. There are a couple of countries on the verge of bankruptcy.

And what started with Bush? I am not sure are you talking the economic down turn or something more specific?