Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trouble is, in the Nuclear Age, we can't afford to wait another 700 years for them to catch up."...thirteen hundred years after its own founding, Christianism didn't have much of a record of separation of church and state either..."
Also, they will never have a Reformation, although they are in desperate need of one.
1. they are far too de-centralized, so there's no central focal-point for such reforms
2. their Founder pretty much explicitly locked-out changes on Day One
Don't hold your breath, waiting for meaningful and globally-broad reform in that domain.
Not gonna happen.
And, ultimately, that is going to prove problematic.
We're already seeing the first manifestations of such things.
Such mob perversion seems to be the price of organized dogma.
Those who attempt to restrict faith are traitors to America and the principles it was founded upon.
We the people.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Yes, but if it is a religion or faith that is corrupting, undermining and/or harmful to this nation, then it should be placed under serious review and scrutiny by our government and it's citizens who are and should be the government in representation there of. It's easy really, but for those who want to complicate it, and all for the reason of slipping through the cracks somehow found within it all, then Houston we have a serious problem in America, and this by such a situation that could be going on, and for which has already hung it's calling card or name on some of these terrorist attacks, and honorably so I might add or rather it is found within their words spoken right before these attacks have taken place.Third President Thomas Jefferson said:“… neither Pagan nor Mahomedan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”
Those who attempt to restrict faith are traitors to America and the principles it was founded upon.
The weapons have been in the hands of the citizens since the beginning, but somehow they began getting into the wrong hands of a section of the citizenry that should have never had these weapons in their hands to begin with. Trying to attack law abiding citizens, just to somehow think that this will alleviate the problem of these thugs, drug lords and murderers from having or getting guns somehow, is the wrong way to go. In fact it should be that the government would be pulling itself closer to these law abiding citizens, instead of pushing away from them like it has (bringing suspicion upon the government when it does this), or when grouping them in with the bad guys in the nation like they have tried to do with the blanket effect that so many uneducated want to happen now. Kidding me right ?I don't think the Founding Fathers anticipated waves of 'Mohammedans' positioning themselves inside the country and waiting until they'd built-up a local majority and then beginning to clamor about Sharia Law and other related issues, otherwise, they would probably have embedded a Poison Pill within the Constitution to prevent it.
Can't help noticing the parallel to:
"I don't think the Founding Fathers anticipated waves of "assault weapons" positioning themselves inside the country and waiting until they'd built-up a local majority and then beginning to clamor about a "well regulated militia" and other related issues"
Just sayin'...
Yes, but if it is a religion or faith that is corrupting, undermining and/or harmful to this nation, then it should be placed under serious review and scrutiny by our government and it's citizens who are and should be the government in representation there of. It's easy really, but for those who want to complicate it, and all for the reason of slipping through the cracks somehow found within it all, then Houston we have a serious problem in America, and this by such a situation that could be going on, and for which has already hung it's calling card or name on some of these terrorist attacks, and honorably so I might add or rather it is found within their words spoken right before these attacks have taken place.Third President Thomas Jefferson said: neither Pagan nor Mahomedan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.
Those who attempt to restrict faith are traitors to America and the principles it was founded upon.
Why should he shut up? He is concerned for his nation, and for what it is transitioning into as found in the violence that is erupting on the streets in ways that we have not known since the 60's turmoil.Beachboy we get your an Islamaphobe, now shut the fuck about it.
Why should he shut up? He is concerned for his nation, and for what it is transitioning into as found in the violence that is erupting on the streets in ways that we have not known since the 60's turmoil.Beachboy we get your an Islamaphobe, now shut the fuck about it.
I would hate that he would shut up because someone like you tells him to. Kidding me right? Or is this putting to much of a spotlight on Obama and the administration maybe, otherwise when these things get discussed like they do here or there ?
Yes, but if it is a religion or faith that is corrupting, undermining and/or harmful to this nation, then it should be placed under serious review and scrutiny by our government and it's citizens who are and should be the government in representation there of. It's easy really, but for those who want to complicate it, and all for the reason of slipping through the cracks somehow found within it all, then Houston we have a serious problem in America, and this by such a situation that could be going on, and for which has already hung it's calling card or name on some of these terrorist attacks, and honorably so I might add or rather it is found within their words spoken right before these attacks have taken place.
Those who attempt to restrict faith are traitors to America and the principles it was founded upon.
"Yes but" nothing. Once we start with the exceptions we have abandoned the principle.
Nobody said it would be easy or convenient. When we start tossing around adjectives like "harmful", "corrupting" and "undermining", not only are we in the realm of the subjective but we beg the question, "harmful" according to who? That's a slippery slope far, far worse than your Houston problem.
Take this thread. Please. The OP oozed in here trying desperately to sell the story that the Boston Marathon bombing was committed by a religion rather than by humans. Once you let that kind of thinking out of Pandora's Box, all hell breaks loose. It's not hard to see why.
You really haven't read this thread from the beginning, have you beagle?
No, i'm just picking up on some of the post and comments being made, and trying to see some rational to the comments or maybe try and give an adjective view from my point as to what some have stated here.. Should I have to read the entire thread to jump in late and make some points here and there within the thread ? My grandpa taught me the art of reading between the lines, in which saves me a lot of headache by having to read so much ya know ? I guess you feel I am not understanding the character dealt with or who had wrote this piece, but I have been following along on the rebuttals and debates as best I can, as it is an interesting subject to me also.You really haven't read this thread from the beginning, have you beagle?
Yes, but if it is a religion or faith that is corrupting, undermining and/or harmful to this nation, then it should be placed under serious review and scrutiny by our government and it's citizens who are and should be the government in representation there of. It's easy really, but for those who want to complicate it, and all for the reason of slipping through the cracks somehow found within it all, then Houston we have a serious problem in America, and this by such a situation that could be going on, and for which has already hung it's calling card or name on some of these terrorist attacks, and honorably so I might add or rather it is found within their words spoken right before these attacks have taken place.
"Yes but" nothing. Once we start with the exceptions we have abandoned the principle.
Nobody said it would be easy or convenient. When we start tossing around adjectives like "harmful", "corrupting" and "undermining", not only are we in the realm of the subjective but we beg the question, "harmful" according to who? That's a slippery slope far, far worse than your Houston problem.
Take this thread. Please. The OP oozed in here trying desperately to sell the story that the Boston Marathon bombing was committed by a religion rather than by humans. Once you let that kind of thinking out of Pandora's Box, all hell breaks loose. It's not hard to see why.
The only way to abandon the principle, is if the persons that the principle is being applied to (Drops the Ball), and begins attacking others based on their own beliefs and principles, in which do not co-inside with our American born principles, just as we figure them to be in our constitution as is written for us.
At this point they have created their own principles that exist outside of the founding principles in which we have for us here or at our disposal to provide them with as well as ourselves with.
Harmful according to whom you asked ?- Uh how about according to the victims and their families that have now suffered great loss in their lives..
I think I am on the same page as you, but when read what you wrote in the context you had wrote it earlier in, I took it to mean something different, especially when you wrote about according to who is it harmful, then I applied the part about the victims at the hands of their killers whom do not abide by our constitution, and even hate it actually, yet here they are living among us now while being protected under the veil of our own constitution in which they use to walk about freely up under, even though possibly our enemy. I thought you were making a case to honor all religions with the use of the constitution no matter what, and without exception. This is where I began my rebuttal.. I apologize for miss-understanding you or did I ?"Yes but" nothing. Once we start with the exceptions we have abandoned the principle.
Nobody said it would be easy or convenient. When we start tossing around adjectives like "harmful", "corrupting" and "undermining", not only are we in the realm of the subjective but we beg the question, "harmful" according to who? That's a slippery slope far, far worse than your Houston problem.
Take this thread. Please. The OP oozed in here trying desperately to sell the story that the Boston Marathon bombing was committed by a religion rather than by humans. Once you let that kind of thinking out of Pandora's Box, all hell breaks loose. It's not hard to see why.
The only way to abandon the principle, is if the persons that the principle is being applied to (Drops the Ball), and begins attacking others based on their own beliefs and principles, in which do not co-inside with our American born principles, just as we figure them to be in our constitution as is written for us.
At this point they have created their own principles that exist outside of the founding principles in which we have for us here or at our disposal to provide them with as well as ourselves with.
Harmful according to whom you asked ?- Uh how about according to the victims and their families that have now suffered great loss in their lives..
Nope, can't do that. You've conflated the Constitution with its beneficiaries.
It's our principle -- not theirs. They don't get to change our principle; we hold it. A principle is a principle; either we hold it, or we do not. Again, nobody said it's always convenient. If it were, there would be no need to write it into the Constitution. If you want to start making "exceptions" and "principles that exist outside of the founding principles", then there's no meaning to the Constitution at all.
A constitution is a structural framework -- the manifestation of the principles we believe in. If you want to start removing this leg here, that leg there from that structure, your framework collapses. And if that's what you intend to do, then you never had a structure to start with.
I think I am on the same page as you, but when read what you wrote in the context you had wrote it earlier in, I took it to me something different, especially when you wrote about according to who is it harmful, then I applied the part about the victims at the hands of their killers whom do not abide by our constitution, and even hate it actually, yet here they are living among us now. I thought you were making a case to honor all religions with the use of the constitution no matter what, and without exception. This is where I began my rebuttal.. I apologize for miss-understanding you...The only way to abandon the principle, is if the persons that the principle is being applied to (Drops the Ball), and begins attacking others based on their own beliefs and principles, in which do not co-inside with our American born principles, just as we figure them to be in our constitution as is written for us.
At this point they have created their own principles that exist outside of the founding principles in which we have for us here or at our disposal to provide them with as well as ourselves with.
Harmful according to whom you asked ?- Uh how about according to the victims and their families that have now suffered great loss in their lives..
Nope, can't do that. You've conflated the Constitution with its beneficiaries.
It's our principle -- not theirs. They don't get to change our principle; we hold it. A principle is a principle; either we hold it, or we do not. Again, nobody said it's always convenient. If it were, there would be no need to write it into the Constitution. If you want to start making "exceptions" and "principles that exist outside of the founding principles", then there's no meaning to the Constitution at all.
A constitution is a structural framework -- the manifestation of the principles we believe in. If you want to start removing this leg here, that leg there from that structure, your framework collapses. And if that's what you intend to do, then you never had a structure to start with.
OK, it's cool to just let a religion be, but when it promotes the killing of infidels meaning us from within our own borders, and it begins to make good on such beliefs or ideals by the implementation of such acts (lets not for get those honor killings either that have taken place), then it is no longer protected or falls under what the constitution had written for religious activities or regarding the religions in which it was intended for (IMHO) or should such a religion be recognized by the American government at all or it shouldn't be until it cleans up it's act. How many more attempts at bombings or actual bombings must we chance to them, if they are different than the religions we have had here since the beginning, and have been living in peace pretty much with since the beginning ? I don't think there are to many now whom want to take to many more chances with a radical wing of this religion, and the problem is, is that they (the bad ones) undoubtedly can live within the religious confounds of the religion, until they (the radical ones) strike, so what to do, Oh what to do ? If we can't get a group of people to police themselves, and to let others know who is amongst them that are bad or a threat, then Houston we have a major problem now don't we ?I think I am on the same page as you, but when read what you wrote in the context you had wrote it earlier in, I took it to me something different, especially when you wrote about according to who is it harmful, then I applied the part about the victims at the hands of their killers whom do not abide by our constitution, and even hate it actually, yet here they are living among us now. I thought you were making a case to honor all religions with the use of the constitution no matter what, and without exception. This is where I began my rebuttal.. I apologize for miss-understanding you...Nope, can't do that. You've conflated the Constitution with its beneficiaries.
It's our principle -- not theirs. They don't get to change our principle; we hold it. A principle is a principle; either we hold it, or we do not. Again, nobody said it's always convenient. If it were, there would be no need to write it into the Constitution. If you want to start making "exceptions" and "principles that exist outside of the founding principles", then there's no meaning to the Constitution at all.
A constitution is a structural framework -- the manifestation of the principles we believe in. If you want to start removing this leg here, that leg there from that structure, your framework collapses. And if that's what you intend to do, then you never had a structure to start with.
Not at all, I'm not sure you did misunderstand; it sounds like you had it basically. Not to "honor" all or any religion, but just to let them be.
Just a clarification, the Constitution is not for people to abide by; it's for the government to abide by.
By the way, does that graphic I posted that keeps getting copied, convey its meaning? Do you get what it's there for? That's a Nazi-era anti-Jewish propaganda poster, used to demonize a particular class of people in order to eliminate them. In other words the same thing the OP has been doing with this thread. That's the problem all of us from all over the political spectrum have with this bigot thread.
No, i'm just picking up on some of the post and comments being made.You really haven't read this thread from the beginning, have you beagle?
