quote:

Originally posted by nute:
I honestly never thought I would meet someone here who would use religion to justify violence, and if it was to happen you'd think it would be the Quran which was being twisted to justify it, not the bible.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LHeym500:
What God calls clean does not need your grace, blessing, nor approval.

Very true!

They are not your servant. They are God’s servant.

Again very true.

There is no religious obligation or duty to politics.

This is where you and mankind fails. God and His teaching should be a part of all walks of life

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LHeym500:
What God calls clean does not need your grace, blessing, nor approval.

Very true!

They are not your servant. They are God’s servant.

Again very true.

There is no religious obligation or duty to politics.

This is where you and mankind fails. God and His teaching should be a part of all walks of life

[/QUOT

So how can you support a whore mongering, adulterous, lying thief? Just asking for a friend….

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LHeym500:
What God calls clean does not need your grace, blessing, nor approval.

Very true!

They are not your servant. They are God’s servant.

Again very true.

There is no religious obligation or duty to politics.

This is where you and mankind fails. God and His teaching should be a part of all walks of life

[/QUOT

So how can you support a whore mongering, adulterous, lying thief? Just asking for a friend….

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
I honestly never thought I would meet someone here who would use religion to justify violence, and if it was to happen you'd think it would be the Quran which was being twisted to justify it, not the bible.

You're naive to history then. No religion has started more wars and slaughtered more people than Christianity.

Ledvm is all too typical, even today.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Steve,
you entirely missed the point - the 1st prevents an established government religion, which freedom to choose how a person can interact with religion, and they most certainly can have their religion - heck, our president disagrees with you, as he sees himself as a good catholic ...

the constitution can't be construed to prohibit a citizen from having the religion of their choice, regardless of the choice of "the neighbors" , but human nature is to affiliate with like minded people - it's unlikely that a protestant will be elected in a 95% catholic or muslim district, unlikely, not impossible. You might recall that JFK was our first catholic president and at the time that was quite an issue -

in short the right to religion is enshrined in the constitution, as well as the right to vote (to be sure, it only ensures the right to vote in federal elections), in no place in the constitution does it PROHIBIT one from having a religion AND being elected -

this is pretty basic stuff - i mean fundamental stuff - i am always surprised when someone i consider to be fairly intelligent can't "get that" --

but don't be mistaken -- i am about as far from a holy roller" as possible

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Lane, while I am a Christian (albeit obviously not a very good one) I see your point that your Christian duty is to be genuine and follow your beliefs.

However, we have decided that this nation is a nation of secular law to prevent inter religious fighting.

That being said, it’s improper (following Jesus’ own commands) to justify a governmental course of action based wholly on “god says”.

You would have to show me where I have done that as I don’t believe I have:

First off, as most religions state, while god is all knowing, his followers are most certainly not. Christian theology is replete with commands to not judge because we are not god.

That being the case, while your moral views are based on God’s word, you are actually enjoined by god to work through the secular structure to come up with governance.

I do. I just don’t check my beliefs at the door.

So example one- Abortion. You actually do a good job here by not making it a religious argument (from what I’ve seen) by making it an argument about standing up for a life that can’t speak for itself. Yes, the Bible is pretty quiet on abortion as abortion- but the overwhelming thought is don’t kill an innocent life.

But then you do bring up Trump and “god works through imperfect tools”… a poor argument because if god wants Trump in, he has the power to do so… and the converse can be said, if Biden wins, it’s gods will.

I have never stated that Trump is God’s will. I do not believe that per se. I just state that argument to “counter” the argument others make who say — a good Christian could not support Trump. We know from the Bible and history that many very flawed men have been instruments of God. And…we are ALL sinners.

It’s the refuge of the simpleton (as we are created in gods image) to defer judgements and morality in debate to “god says”.

While your view may be god says X, you should not be using that as a public statement as to why to vote a certain way.

I somewhat disagree with that statement. It is rather broad.

Conversely to the audience, just because someone states that the law of Moses was a fundamental building block of American jurisprudence, and wants to put a mural of him coming down from the mount with the commandments in a courthouse, that’s not a violation of secular law. It’s a historical reference that you should certainly not get offended by due to its relation to a religion.

If you get a jury, at least half of them statistically should be Christians, and will have some element of Christian morals in their thought processes. That will affect their judgement but it’s not disqualifying, any more than the Muslim or atheist would be.

If someone wants a law because god says so, so what? The point is, is it a good law? If your reason for having a law against murder is the commandment, I don’t care because a law against murder is something I agree with. I may think you’re a simpleton for putting it that way, but so what? The Christian who chooses to be more strict than the law in his own life hurts no one else.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The easiest example is marriage equality, state enforced prayer, and abortion.

Neither are addressed in the New Testament. However, your objections are purely “faith based.”
That was kind of my point. While you can have a faith basis, argue the points in a logic based manner.

Do you remember your diatribe that a state using cohesive power to enforce a pray you approve of was a good thing?
As I recall, it was not a "forced" prayer, but rather allowing time in a school setting to pray. There was no mandate that you pray, just that it was a time for it and all were expected to be respectful.

Lawrence v Texas which you have called to overturn rejects your statement that a local societies religious interpretation is sufficient to justify civil and criminal probation by the state.
Probation? Do you mean prohibition or mandate?

I thank God for it because the justification for state’s anti-sodomy laws addressed by Lawerence v Texas was gay people are yucky bc the “Bible tells us so.”
If that's the case, then it was a poor law and it should have been tossed. There are certainly some issues there.

As I asked you repeatedly once, that you refused to answer, why should your religious experience concerning abortion set nation policy for all?
As I recall, I said that while I find it a ugly practice, and needs to be more strictly regulated, I am of the opinion that we really can't ban it.

However, there are there are lots of laws and more regulations that I find repugnant yet they are the law of the land... its the nature of the beast called government that there are things you don't agree with that you live with.

However, in response, you asked me a bunch of questions I answered directly. Yet, you never did. That is bc you have no rational other than you think God demands a woman be sent away from hospital to bleed out from a dead fetus inside her, I'm sorry, but the law does not mandate that. or a 12 year old be forced to deliver the child she was impregnated w through rape. This is does mandate and is wrong and should be changed forthwith. Meanwhile, your Dobbs opinion and the consequences of the opinion continue to lose you elections. Isn't the Dobbs decision a SCOTUS ruling and thus "our" decision... even more yours since you are an officer of the court? I don't disagree that that particular 3rd rail is hurting conservatives and Republicans in the elections. That is some justice. Sadly, not enough for the women in Texas.

Your moral beliefs cannot become civil law. If you want to live in a Theocracy, I am sure Iran would have you.
You are wrong here. All laws are based off of the morality of the folks who vote for them. Many of these folks are religous and while some feel that their religion needs to be secondary to the civil law, that is a moral position those folks take.

While I agree we should not become a theocracy, and actually feel the Bible actually teaches us that in the new testament, we are, as so many are fond of saying, a democracy and if enough people vote that way (meaning we actually go so far as to do a number of constitutional amendments) pretty much anything can happen.

What we have been doing over the last several decades has been using the courts to push changes that are more rightly part of the legislative process... because some folks feel strongly about something and yet they do not have the sufficient majority to actually amend the constitution to the way they want it... on both sides of the political aisle.

You ignore that a state cannot endorse a religious view. You actively try through politics to make your incorrect reading of scripture civil law.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The easiest example is marriage equality, state enforced prayer, and abortion.

5,000 years of precedence of marriage being between a man and a woman…thought you liked precedence

Never advocated for state enforced prayer

Why do you want to kill the most innocent human beings formed?

Neither are addressed in the New Testament.

Bible has 2 parts and Jesus stated: don’t forget the old

However, your objections are purely “faith based.”

Not purely.

Do you remember your diatribe that a state using cohesive power to enforce a pray you approve of was a good thing?

You are delusional.

Lawrence v Texas which you have called to overturn rejects your statement that a local societies religious interpretation is sufficient to justify civil and criminal probation by the state.

I thank God for it because the justification for state’s anti-sodomy laws addressed by Lawerence v Texas was gay people are yucky bc the “Bible tells us so.”

As I asked you repeatedly once, that you refused to answer, why should your religious experience concerning abortion set nation policy for all?

Why do we not allow murder at will? These human beings cannot speak. They deserve an advocate. You would think a lawyer would get that.

However, in response, you asked me a bunch of questions I answered directly. Yet, you never did. That is bc you have no rational other than you think God demands a woman be sent away from hospital to bleed out from a dead fetus inside her, or a 12 year old be forced to deliver the child she was impregnated w through rape. Meanwhile, your Dobbs opinion and the consequences of the opinion continue to lose you elections. That is some justice. Sadly, not enough for the women in Texas.

More mindless babble.

Your moral beliefs cannot become civil law. If you want to live in a Theocracy, I am sure Iran would have you.

I can however certainly advocate for my beliefs and put my money behind them in politics.

You ignore that a state cannot endorse a religious view.

It can (as the Founders intended) be tolerant of them however.

You actively try through politics to make your incorrect reading of scripture civil law.

Forgive me if I ignore your thoughts of correctness of Scripture interpretation.

quote:

However, in response, you asked me a bunch of questions I answered directly. Yet, you never did. That is bc you have no rational other than you think God demands a woman be sent away from hospital to bleed out from a dead fetus inside her, or a 12 year old be forced to deliver the child she was impregnated w through rape. Meanwhile, your Dobbs opinion and the consequences of the opinion continue to lose you elections. That is some justice. Sadly, not enough for the women in Texas.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I knew Clayton Williams. He was a good guy and meant that as a joke. He was being interviewed by a reporter at his ranch during a cattle working and work had stopped due to a rain storm.

The reporter asked him if he was annoyed by the rain stopping the work. He (jokingly) said: Rain is like rape. If it is inevitable…you might as well lay back and enjoy it. It was in poor taste. It cost him the Governorship. But, he didn’t mean it. He also should have known better. He was a good man.

The rest of those people were idiots for making those statements and I never supported any of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I knew Clayton Williams. He was a good guy and meant that as a joke. He was being interviewed by a reporter at his ranch during a cattle working and work had stopped due to a rain storm.

The reporter asked him if he was annoyed by the rain stopping the work. He (jokingly) said: Rain is like rape. If it is inevitable…you might as well lay back and enjoy it. It was in poor taste. It cost him the Governorship. But, he didn’t mean it. He also should have known better. He was a good man.

The rest of those people were idiots for making those statements and I never supported any of them.

Right. Rape. Ha-ha.

Why am I not surprised that Claytie was a friend of yours?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I knew Clayton Williams. He was a good guy and meant that as a joke. He was being interviewed by a reporter at his ranch during a cattle working and work had stopped due to a rain storm.

The reporter asked him if he was annoyed by the rain stopping the work. He (jokingly) said: Rain is like rape. If it is inevitable…you might as well lay back and enjoy it. It was in poor taste. It cost him the Governorship. But, he didn’t mean it. He also should have known better. He was a good man.

The rest of those people were idiots for making those statements and I never supported any of them.

Right. Rape. Ha-ha.

Why am I not surprised that Claytie was a friend of yours?

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

However, in response, you asked me a bunch of questions I answered directly. Yet, you never did. That is bc you have no rational other than you think God demands a woman be sent away from hospital to bleed out from a dead fetus inside her, or a 12 year old be forced to deliver the child she was impregnated w through rape. Meanwhile, your Dobbs opinion and the consequences of the opinion continue to lose you elections. That is some justice. Sadly, not enough for the women in Texas.

If you want to check that these lovely people actually said these things here is a link to scopes - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/personal-foul/

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I knew Clayton Williams. He was a good guy and meant that as a joke. He was being interviewed by a reporter at his ranch during a cattle working and work had stopped due to a rain storm.

The reporter asked him if he was annoyed by the rain stopping the work. He (jokingly) said: Rain is like rape. If it is inevitable…you might as well lay back and enjoy it. It was in poor taste. It cost him the Governorship. But, he didn’t mean it. He also should have known better. He was a good man.

The rest of those people were idiots for making those statements and I never supported any of them.

Right. Rape. Ha-ha.

Why am I not surprised that Claytie was a friend of yours?

While I am sure you are pure as the driven snow Mike and have never made an off color joke in any shape or form…most of us have crossed the line at some point in our lives.

Clayton Williams was a good man. That comment cost him the governorship. BTW by Nute…that comment was made in 1991.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I knew Clayton Williams. He was a good guy and meant that as a joke. He was being interviewed by a reporter at his ranch during a cattle working and work had stopped due to a rain storm.

The reporter asked him if he was annoyed by the rain stopping the work. He (jokingly) said: Rain is like rape. If it is inevitable…you might as well lay back and enjoy it. It was in poor taste. It cost him the Governorship. But, he didn’t mean it. He also should have known better. He was a good man.

The rest of those people were idiots for making those statements and I never supported any of them.

Right. Rape. Ha-ha.

Why am I not surprised that Claytie was a friend of yours?

While I am sure you are pure as the driven snow Mike and have never made an off color joke in any shape or form…most of us have crossed the line at some point in our lives.

Clayton Williams was a good man. That comment cost him the governorship. BTW by Nute…that comment was made in 1991.

It was 1990, I know because I read the snopes blurb as I couldn’t believe that people would say such stupid things, let alone those in office doing so.

When you read the context it does explain his comment, although it’s still a daft thing to say.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
I grew up a poor country boy too, that is little reason to behave in such as crass manner. I never found rape to a joking matter, but then I have known several rape victims personally.


I stand by my terribly misguided statement.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
No, I'm not claiming that at all. See my earlier statement about being mindful of the company you are in.

Reporters, by definition are not one of the boys.