Giving more obey to the poor = throwing gasoline on a fire.

[Anathema]

Universal Morality? No such thing exists.

On that we will have to disagree.

 

[cnm]

This should be a MORALITY nation, not a Religious nation. Morality supercedes Religion and always should.

See, you're doing it right, you don't want it to be a Christian nation with Christian values.

 

[cnm]

Stephen Colbert?

You realize he's a comedian right?

Yeah, he was pretty funny postulating the US was a Christian nation don't you think?

 

[cnm]

Again, morals are community norms, valid morals are those norms which help the community succeed.

 

[Kondor3]

Stephen Colbert?

You realize he's a comedian right?

Yeah, he was pretty funny postulating the US was a Christian nation don't you think?

Don't look now, but the US was founded BY Christians, utilizing Christian heritage and morals and cultural values...

And it continues to be a Christian nation, dominated by adherents to that belief system, who maintain a tradition of Separation of Church and State...

Christianity dominates our heritage and history and philosophy and laws and morality and public and private life...

But it does so through influence and the transmission of and adherence to ideals and dogma, indirectly (and imperfectly and weakly), rather than directly...

Such a configuration is rare on the world stage, although the Euros have gone a long way down that road by now as well...

Such a configuration can defensibly and arguably be styled a 'Secularized Christian Nation', regardless of frequently-cited early writings to the contrary.

A secularized Christian Nation, but a Christian Nation, nevertheless, in practice, as well as heritage.

So, yes, the United States is, indeed, a 'Christian Nation', in a very real sense.

All squealing and squirming and wiggling and twisting in the wind and protestations by atheists and agnostics to the contrary, notwithstanding.

( although it's a genuine laugh-riot... the stuff of a great stand-up comedy sketch... to watch 'em squeal in protest against that particular interpretation )

 

[strollingbones]

again we have conservatives wanting all the fetuses born but after that....they say fuck em
thanks pred for proving that

 

[Anathema]

See, you're doing it right, you don't want it to be a Christian nation with Christian values.

Exactly. I want the much stricter and less forgiving standard of Morality as the foundational concept for the country.

 

[westwall]

Just admit it.

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.”
― Stephen Colbert​

The problem is when you give without requirements t improve education or other means of improving the poor's lot in life, all you do is make them slaves. Is it actually helping them to keep them in an endless child/adult relationship? Anyone who NEEDS help, I am all for helping. However, after spending well over 5 trillion dollars to combat the war on poverty, and the net result being MORE people in poverty, one has to wonder if merely throwing money at poverty is the best approach.

 

[westwall]

Robert Malthus figured this out decades ago.

And Malthus was wrong.

 

[Anathema]

again we have conservatives wanting all the fetuses born but after that....they say fuck em
thanks pred for proving that

It's a matter of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I understand that many on the :Left don't understand that concept, nevermind agree with it; but it IS the proper Moral Standard. If you don't want kids DON'T HAVE SEX. It's about that simple, folks.

 

[Disir]

Trying to end poverty by giving them money for food is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Giving them food, housing, sustinence if any kind only serves to make poverty and dependence a viable option for them. What happens when you take care of the poor? They make more poor babies.

This is why after all this time since the war on poverty began, and even before that, going back to when welfare began, we have more poor people than we started with.

There are ways to fix the problem, but it will require the courage to do it and that kind of courage is lacking even in the GOP let alone the left.

Are you stating that everyone that lives in poverty is a Welfare Queen?

 

[PredFan]

Stephen Colbert?

You realize he's a comedian right?

Yeah, he was pretty funny postulating the US was a Christian nation don't you think?

Stephen Colbert said that?

 

[PredFan]

again we have conservatives wanting all the fetuses born but after that....they say fuck em
thanks pred for proving that

Yeah or maybe they could keep their fucking legs closed.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Trying to end poverty by giving them money for food is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Not really.

Giving them food, housing, sustinence if any kind only serves to make poverty and dependence a viable option for them. What happens when you take care of the poor? They make more poor babies.

I like how in the same paragraph you both imply that poverty is an "option" that people simply choose....and also imply its something you are born into. You must surely be stupid.

 

[PredFan]

Trying to end poverty by giving them money for food is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Giving them food, housing, sustinence if any kind only serves to make poverty and dependence a viable option for them. What happens when you take care of the poor? They make more poor babies.

This is why after all this time since the war on poverty began, and even before that, going back to when welfare began, we have more poor people than we started with.

There are ways to fix the problem, but it will require the courage to do it and that kind of courage is lacking even in the GOP let alone the left.

Are you stating that everyone that lives in poverty is a Welfare Queen?

No, only a moron would make such a generalization.

 

[PredFan]

Trying to end poverty by giving them money for food is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Not really.

Giving them food, housing, sustinence if any kind only serves to make poverty and dependence a viable option for them. What happens when you take care of the poor? They make more poor babies.

I like how in the same paragraph you both imply that poverty is an "option" that people simply choose....and also imply its something you are born into. You must surely be stupid.

Yes really.

You really can't see how that isn't in any way contradictory? Why am I not surprised?

 

[Disir]

Trying to end poverty by giving them money for food is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Giving them food, housing, sustinence if any kind only serves to make poverty and dependence a viable option for them. What happens when you take care of the poor? They make more poor babies.

This is why after all this time since the war on poverty began, and even before that, going back to when welfare began, we have more poor people than we started with.

There are ways to fix the problem, but it will require the courage to do it and that kind of courage is lacking even in the GOP let alone the left.

Are you stating that everyone that lives in poverty is a Welfare Queen?

No, only a moron would make such a generalization.

How do you personally classify them? Or how do you differentiate between them?