GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Is John McCain the defender of religious morals in government?
How many Obama supporters would agree with that statement?
How many Obama supporters would agree with that statement?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Religion and Politics
- Thread starter GenSeneca
- Start date
Werbung:
Andy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,497
The left define themselves by their lack of morals. To them the idea of any truth of any kind is fictional. Only to be used when politically expedient. This is how Clinton could redefine words on a whim, walk into a Church on Sunday with a Bible tucked under his arm, and have extramarital affairs continuously with any thing that moved, and then go to a major university and claim there is no absolute truth.
Religion, the Bible, a belief in God all rely on an external absolute truth. You can't justify anything and everything, if you believe there is someone you are accountable too.
So much like the roots of Catholicism were based in government needing a way to justify making war to 'take back the holy land', to the left, religion is nothing more than a tool to be used to accomplish political goals.
Religion, the Bible, a belief in God all rely on an external absolute truth. You can't justify anything and everything, if you believe there is someone you are accountable too.
So much like the roots of Catholicism were based in government needing a way to justify making war to 'take back the holy land', to the left, religion is nothing more than a tool to be used to accomplish political goals.
The left doesn't define itself by a lack of moraliy, the right defines the left by their lack of morality.
Then again, the left defines the right the same way.
Anyone defines anyone else by their difference in morals. It is a fundamental difference between each individual or group, and one of the ways in which humans have their own personality. Your morals are different from the left, but you do not have more of them, and I doubt your more hugely moral than the average left winger.
Since when was the Bible the supreme source of morals?Only to people gullable enough to believe it. I can find my own morals through society, whether I need to find myself in parallel with organized religions like Christianity or more secular.
Morals that the Bible teaches:
1) Do not kill
2) Do not steal
3) Do not commit adultery
4) Be generally nice to each other
All civilized societies will have a set of morals that is similar to these.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
BTW, the quote I used was from Obama, not McCain. 
SusanConstant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 131
Re: Religion and Politics I
Governemnt and law - at least in the US - is not a codification of morals. It is a codification of an ethic, a singular universal truth: equal protection and due process born of the exactly named Creator. A huamn comes into existence with liberty and will not free will as there is no such thing as free will for humans. Free is any and all; liberty is a choice among more than one just choice. Humans always had terms; there were terms in Eden and there are terms now. huamns own the knowledge; animals have onterms and do not.
Separation of church and state is the separation of an ethic versus morals. An ehtic applies to all of us but morals do not. Belief, proof and faith are three diferent things. Our faith is the same - equality - but our belifs are all different and it is that vibrant clash of beliefs that eventually reveals what is or is not true in a constituional nation. As you live what you say you believe while invoking equal protection and due process for all you come to then own proof as in any constitutional nation life is proof.
Think of it this way: The founders possessed zero proof that the governemnt and law they invented would work. They had faith born of a Creator as they rose above the fray and instituted the first amendment in spite of their personal belifs and personal mores. Then they separated church and state by law. We had to live out their experiement and so the empirical results are in the pudding - all of us. We came to have proof of what did or did not work and what is or is not fact. White supremecy was proven to be a false or mistaken belief; it was proven to be a lie. We came to know what is an inviooate law of this universe: We are all created equally.
Actual law is not subject to revision by man as it is elegant. Our exactly worded law as written in 1776 and 1787 is elegant. It covers all people due to facts of English and Latin and due to some exact words are founders deliberately excluded. It is the lie of your life to purport as fact that our law is based upon Christianity; it is factual to state it is based upon Judeo-christian belifs. One of those beliefs? Women are defective and this then has caused an invisible violation of separation of church and state as women are yet denied justice and their vote yet has no actual legal power but is a vote in appearance alone. Look around as it is self-evident: This ain't working for us.
If you study religions you will come to find the universal truths of all religous philosophy is to be found in our law, some exactly worded some not. All governemnt and law begins as a philosophy and all philosophy is not law. Patriarch yhas caused all manner of mistaken, flase and corrupted belifs to be lived out as real. People have been conditioned to "belive" lies as absolute fact.
Legal power is liberty and moral authority is will. Liberty is realized as law and moral authority is realized as government. You're suposed to neter the elected and appointed offices in this nation with moral authority and moral authority is not morals...it's an ethic. That said, all relgions aspire to the same goal but as peope has been taught to belive lies we do have to worry about religion as having an ethic means only that you belive in a Creator that makes us all equals. when people bring mistaken or false religious teachings nto office with them and then try to inflict them upon us we are acting as dead institutions. It is easy to spot these mistaken belifs: We now have a Chief Justice who is convinced that women are less than men, that women are not of god or are defective by theie nature, that law does not apply to women equally or at all and that he can invoke the power of the Creator and so put innocent women and their children to death against their will without just cause or reason; he not once has been able to support anything he has written regarding cases concerning women like Carhart. His reasoning is faulty and none of his evidence rises to proof; he isues decisons that openly violate our exactly written law and all federal precedent so much so that Bader-ginsburg has stood him down twice in public by speaking in dissent from the bench.
Roberts is Roman Catholic. I was raised roman Catholic. He went to an all boyschool; I did not. We both went to parochial school though. I can exactly name the mistaken belif he possesses which the roman Catholic Church does not teach; it is a corruption they allow and do not correct. It is a blank that people fill in although the church has a definite position on this as all of Catholicism is reasoned. This paticular mistaken belif? It cocenrs women and roberts has zero bussiness bringing this in iwth him. He lied to congress and to us: He said he could leave this at the door. He cannot and did not. Roberts is specifically violating Article 4 Section 4 every day he sits as Chief and due to Bush V Gore (a tie due to exact words and math) he is acting w/o authority and in violation of the whole law. Persons told us he had a problem and his own words proved it. He denies actual reality when it comes to women and to his own personal beliefs which he holds as true and fact when they are not. He is acting upon mistaken beliefs.
You must, must, must examine a person's beliefs - words and actions that then produce actual results - in order to figure out if they will be of the ability to re-examine them, jettison them or set them aside in order to preserve, protect and defend the law. My first clue concerning roberts? Besides knowing Bush V gore was a tie and that appointing two men then became taxation w/o representation for all women, Roberts person broke all the rules as there is constituional reasoning for appointing the oldest as Chief. john roberts is in no way so evolved as a person that he is the exception to the rules let alone the law. So i paid attention: Karl rove insists he did not choose roberts. Well, Bush Jr. did not either according to his exact words and actions and due to facts of his own life. One suspect reared his ugly head and said: It's me! I did it! That person? Dick Cheney. He said it over and over. So, WHY roberts? Easy: to manipulate the law in such a way that a woman named Bader-Ginsburg did not eventually ascend to Chief Justice at some point after Stevens and to then subjugate women for decades as old age is the check and balance you cannot beat. Roberts is young; we might have to suffer him for years and years. Woory as bush v gore was also a Chief Justice unchecking himself and the Justices voting twice for President. A gross violation of separation of power has been realized. A court that has zero law making ability now makes law and even tries to rewrite inviolate law like math and English grammar. This court now argues fact and actual reality as if they can change law; it is as if they have the power to decide things like gravity and so they reason it and issue decisons such as gravity will now makes things fall up!!! They act as if they are God; their decisions in no way match our exactly worded law or the laws of the universe known as physics!
Governemnt and law - at least in the US - is not a codification of morals. It is a codification of an ethic, a singular universal truth: equal protection and due process born of the exactly named Creator. A huamn comes into existence with liberty and will not free will as there is no such thing as free will for humans. Free is any and all; liberty is a choice among more than one just choice. Humans always had terms; there were terms in Eden and there are terms now. huamns own the knowledge; animals have onterms and do not.
Separation of church and state is the separation of an ethic versus morals. An ehtic applies to all of us but morals do not. Belief, proof and faith are three diferent things. Our faith is the same - equality - but our belifs are all different and it is that vibrant clash of beliefs that eventually reveals what is or is not true in a constituional nation. As you live what you say you believe while invoking equal protection and due process for all you come to then own proof as in any constitutional nation life is proof.
Think of it this way: The founders possessed zero proof that the governemnt and law they invented would work. They had faith born of a Creator as they rose above the fray and instituted the first amendment in spite of their personal belifs and personal mores. Then they separated church and state by law. We had to live out their experiement and so the empirical results are in the pudding - all of us. We came to have proof of what did or did not work and what is or is not fact. White supremecy was proven to be a false or mistaken belief; it was proven to be a lie. We came to know what is an inviooate law of this universe: We are all created equally.
Actual law is not subject to revision by man as it is elegant. Our exactly worded law as written in 1776 and 1787 is elegant. It covers all people due to facts of English and Latin and due to some exact words are founders deliberately excluded. It is the lie of your life to purport as fact that our law is based upon Christianity; it is factual to state it is based upon Judeo-christian belifs. One of those beliefs? Women are defective and this then has caused an invisible violation of separation of church and state as women are yet denied justice and their vote yet has no actual legal power but is a vote in appearance alone. Look around as it is self-evident: This ain't working for us.
If you study religions you will come to find the universal truths of all religous philosophy is to be found in our law, some exactly worded some not. All governemnt and law begins as a philosophy and all philosophy is not law. Patriarch yhas caused all manner of mistaken, flase and corrupted belifs to be lived out as real. People have been conditioned to "belive" lies as absolute fact.
Legal power is liberty and moral authority is will. Liberty is realized as law and moral authority is realized as government. You're suposed to neter the elected and appointed offices in this nation with moral authority and moral authority is not morals...it's an ethic. That said, all relgions aspire to the same goal but as peope has been taught to belive lies we do have to worry about religion as having an ethic means only that you belive in a Creator that makes us all equals. when people bring mistaken or false religious teachings nto office with them and then try to inflict them upon us we are acting as dead institutions. It is easy to spot these mistaken belifs: We now have a Chief Justice who is convinced that women are less than men, that women are not of god or are defective by theie nature, that law does not apply to women equally or at all and that he can invoke the power of the Creator and so put innocent women and their children to death against their will without just cause or reason; he not once has been able to support anything he has written regarding cases concerning women like Carhart. His reasoning is faulty and none of his evidence rises to proof; he isues decisons that openly violate our exactly written law and all federal precedent so much so that Bader-ginsburg has stood him down twice in public by speaking in dissent from the bench.
Roberts is Roman Catholic. I was raised roman Catholic. He went to an all boyschool; I did not. We both went to parochial school though. I can exactly name the mistaken belif he possesses which the roman Catholic Church does not teach; it is a corruption they allow and do not correct. It is a blank that people fill in although the church has a definite position on this as all of Catholicism is reasoned. This paticular mistaken belif? It cocenrs women and roberts has zero bussiness bringing this in iwth him. He lied to congress and to us: He said he could leave this at the door. He cannot and did not. Roberts is specifically violating Article 4 Section 4 every day he sits as Chief and due to Bush V Gore (a tie due to exact words and math) he is acting w/o authority and in violation of the whole law. Persons told us he had a problem and his own words proved it. He denies actual reality when it comes to women and to his own personal beliefs which he holds as true and fact when they are not. He is acting upon mistaken beliefs.
You must, must, must examine a person's beliefs - words and actions that then produce actual results - in order to figure out if they will be of the ability to re-examine them, jettison them or set them aside in order to preserve, protect and defend the law. My first clue concerning roberts? Besides knowing Bush V gore was a tie and that appointing two men then became taxation w/o representation for all women, Roberts person broke all the rules as there is constituional reasoning for appointing the oldest as Chief. john roberts is in no way so evolved as a person that he is the exception to the rules let alone the law. So i paid attention: Karl rove insists he did not choose roberts. Well, Bush Jr. did not either according to his exact words and actions and due to facts of his own life. One suspect reared his ugly head and said: It's me! I did it! That person? Dick Cheney. He said it over and over. So, WHY roberts? Easy: to manipulate the law in such a way that a woman named Bader-Ginsburg did not eventually ascend to Chief Justice at some point after Stevens and to then subjugate women for decades as old age is the check and balance you cannot beat. Roberts is young; we might have to suffer him for years and years. Woory as bush v gore was also a Chief Justice unchecking himself and the Justices voting twice for President. A gross violation of separation of power has been realized. A court that has zero law making ability now makes law and even tries to rewrite inviolate law like math and English grammar. This court now argues fact and actual reality as if they can change law; it is as if they have the power to decide things like gravity and so they reason it and issue decisons such as gravity will now makes things fall up!!! They act as if they are God; their decisions in no way match our exactly worded law or the laws of the universe known as physics!
SusanConstant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 131
Re: Religion and Politics II
Our law is such that in the end it is between you and God and so you must disobey illegal and unethical orders of your commanding officers. Marbury clearly states this and this - having room to move around in between morals which is your one vote all the way up to an ethic - a Creator that leveled the playing field by duly processing all of us so we are equal - is what gives us actual power to make well-reasoned decisions for ourselves and others regarding life and death. God leveld the playing field first and the founders leveld it secondly in writing by legislating one man, one vote. Liberty then allows you to define yourself and what you do or do not belive. Jeferson said: Action defines who and what you are. correct, as we will just governemnt and law into being by acting.
It is foolish to think you can ignore the religion of a person entering office. You want a person to possess morals but they must have an ethic, and you need to examine if the morals - religion or true beliefs - this person acts upon might cause injury and harm. what do they write on offical memos as if that was not their true belief they would not then make it real. I might write in a personal letter something like "If you are not Christian you are going to hell". Wuold I write that on officla stationary? Or while on the job? NO. I might truly belive it, I might not. Writing it in a personal letter might be my way of re-examing this or re-reasoning it to find out if it is a fact or a corruption. but once I act to exprss this in any 'offical' manner then I am making it real; i am making it my true belif which I then will act upon no matter what I tell you to your face.
Barack Obama is delusional if he thinks I belive as fact that he went to a church for twenty yeras and named an exact person as his mentor but now suddenly possesses none of those previous beliefs. My evidence rising to proof? Being black is not change; i do not care what your appearance is as you are the exact same thing: A Democrat who is a part of a two party, unjust, entrenched monopoly who cannot secure full rights for women as you lack the human ability to reason it as you are a man and so will never, ever come to know preganncy and childbirth as absolute fact. not once have yu mentioned securing these rights and you even told me an exact lie: You are not a professor of constituional aw and you either cannot reason it or you do not want to rason on behalf of women as I gave you the answers in writing. He also snuck into my hometown and then lied about that. McCain is just as bad in a different way. Two unjust men.
I fully expect all Americans to have beliefs and to experiement with those beliefs. Trying a new belif on for size is not picking and choosing belifs - it is searching for the truth. This is a process and no person can have a true belie they act upon for years and years and then when it is not popular lose it. Belifs, true belifs you act upon, are not up for debate and are not up for the popular vote. They are yours alone and the proof you have may not ever be my proof. I may never come to have your same beliefs. give me your evidence; tell me how you lived your life so that you came to own proof - what were the results - and I might have to consider that my belif is mistaken or I might have to reason that your belif is indeed true - a fact -but it does not work for me or my family due to the facts of our unique lives.
The only thing that I will not ever accept or even listen to as it is unconstitutional and as it violates physics? If you tell me you ar an atheist i know as fact you have no ethic. It is not possible as an ethic does not exist without a metaphysic. If you answer to nothing and to no one then you will do whatever you please; you will act like an animal. You cannot tell me you will answer to the people as sorry! We aren't above you; we are equal. My one vote is the power of executive order. I'm not god and I do not have the ultimate veto - you do. It is about self-denial and acting selflessly as the only rule of law that is an actual law of this universe is the Golden Rule which is why it is golden. That is where the guarantee of my rights lay so no ethic no vote for you ever.
Religion? I can prove god exists as I have had all 7 sacred experiences as I deliberatly set out to discover the turth and so I can and will accept anybody expressing the ture belifs of: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Native America. The 7th? LIBERTY, as liberty is an emotion, an outside condition known as justice and it is an actual sacred experience to be had which I accidentally by desgin accessed when I entered US Supreme Court as the only pro se constitutional authority case of orginal jurisdiction and was then heard but denied oral argument only as men sought to protect, preserve and defend the invention of the institutions of Chief Justice and President (Commander) as all male. No man standing upon authority and/or orginal jurisdiction was ever denied oral argument and I'm the only women to stand upon authority and O.J. as I am an absolute class of one who then represents the whole class. So I communed with the God via liberty. What Adams and Henry described was not liberty as sacred but liberty as an emotion and outside condition.
We did it! Lincoln's civil religion? Yes, but our success lies in freedom of religion and naming the Creator exactly plus Marbury as we are the only government and law ever to separate church and state and so an ethic versus morals. All the rest like Rome, Isreal and Tibet combined the two. It has never once worked - ever in all of history. They all fell.
We cannot be electing or appointing people who personally combine the two. The line must be clearly drawn. It is invisible so it might sneak up on you like a thief in the night. Tell candidates:
Do not tell me what you can or will do for me. I can take care of my own self. I do not need you. Tell me all about your life and yourself; tell me about your experiences and so how you came to believe what you say you believe as fact no matter what that is. Faith - the law - is not to be blind as all 'belief' can be reasoned and supported with evidence rising to proof as either true or false. You give me all of your self evidence and I can reason you as a President or a pretender.
Our law is such that in the end it is between you and God and so you must disobey illegal and unethical orders of your commanding officers. Marbury clearly states this and this - having room to move around in between morals which is your one vote all the way up to an ethic - a Creator that leveled the playing field by duly processing all of us so we are equal - is what gives us actual power to make well-reasoned decisions for ourselves and others regarding life and death. God leveld the playing field first and the founders leveld it secondly in writing by legislating one man, one vote. Liberty then allows you to define yourself and what you do or do not belive. Jeferson said: Action defines who and what you are. correct, as we will just governemnt and law into being by acting.
It is foolish to think you can ignore the religion of a person entering office. You want a person to possess morals but they must have an ethic, and you need to examine if the morals - religion or true beliefs - this person acts upon might cause injury and harm. what do they write on offical memos as if that was not their true belief they would not then make it real. I might write in a personal letter something like "If you are not Christian you are going to hell". Wuold I write that on officla stationary? Or while on the job? NO. I might truly belive it, I might not. Writing it in a personal letter might be my way of re-examing this or re-reasoning it to find out if it is a fact or a corruption. but once I act to exprss this in any 'offical' manner then I am making it real; i am making it my true belif which I then will act upon no matter what I tell you to your face.
Barack Obama is delusional if he thinks I belive as fact that he went to a church for twenty yeras and named an exact person as his mentor but now suddenly possesses none of those previous beliefs. My evidence rising to proof? Being black is not change; i do not care what your appearance is as you are the exact same thing: A Democrat who is a part of a two party, unjust, entrenched monopoly who cannot secure full rights for women as you lack the human ability to reason it as you are a man and so will never, ever come to know preganncy and childbirth as absolute fact. not once have yu mentioned securing these rights and you even told me an exact lie: You are not a professor of constituional aw and you either cannot reason it or you do not want to rason on behalf of women as I gave you the answers in writing. He also snuck into my hometown and then lied about that. McCain is just as bad in a different way. Two unjust men.
I fully expect all Americans to have beliefs and to experiement with those beliefs. Trying a new belif on for size is not picking and choosing belifs - it is searching for the truth. This is a process and no person can have a true belie they act upon for years and years and then when it is not popular lose it. Belifs, true belifs you act upon, are not up for debate and are not up for the popular vote. They are yours alone and the proof you have may not ever be my proof. I may never come to have your same beliefs. give me your evidence; tell me how you lived your life so that you came to own proof - what were the results - and I might have to consider that my belif is mistaken or I might have to reason that your belif is indeed true - a fact -but it does not work for me or my family due to the facts of our unique lives.
The only thing that I will not ever accept or even listen to as it is unconstitutional and as it violates physics? If you tell me you ar an atheist i know as fact you have no ethic. It is not possible as an ethic does not exist without a metaphysic. If you answer to nothing and to no one then you will do whatever you please; you will act like an animal. You cannot tell me you will answer to the people as sorry! We aren't above you; we are equal. My one vote is the power of executive order. I'm not god and I do not have the ultimate veto - you do. It is about self-denial and acting selflessly as the only rule of law that is an actual law of this universe is the Golden Rule which is why it is golden. That is where the guarantee of my rights lay so no ethic no vote for you ever.
Religion? I can prove god exists as I have had all 7 sacred experiences as I deliberatly set out to discover the turth and so I can and will accept anybody expressing the ture belifs of: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Native America. The 7th? LIBERTY, as liberty is an emotion, an outside condition known as justice and it is an actual sacred experience to be had which I accidentally by desgin accessed when I entered US Supreme Court as the only pro se constitutional authority case of orginal jurisdiction and was then heard but denied oral argument only as men sought to protect, preserve and defend the invention of the institutions of Chief Justice and President (Commander) as all male. No man standing upon authority and/or orginal jurisdiction was ever denied oral argument and I'm the only women to stand upon authority and O.J. as I am an absolute class of one who then represents the whole class. So I communed with the God via liberty. What Adams and Henry described was not liberty as sacred but liberty as an emotion and outside condition.
We did it! Lincoln's civil religion? Yes, but our success lies in freedom of religion and naming the Creator exactly plus Marbury as we are the only government and law ever to separate church and state and so an ethic versus morals. All the rest like Rome, Isreal and Tibet combined the two. It has never once worked - ever in all of history. They all fell.
We cannot be electing or appointing people who personally combine the two. The line must be clearly drawn. It is invisible so it might sneak up on you like a thief in the night. Tell candidates:
Do not tell me what you can or will do for me. I can take care of my own self. I do not need you. Tell me all about your life and yourself; tell me about your experiences and so how you came to believe what you say you believe as fact no matter what that is. Faith - the law - is not to be blind as all 'belief' can be reasoned and supported with evidence rising to proof as either true or false. You give me all of your self evidence and I can reason you as a President or a pretender.
UShadItComing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 680
Christianity and morality are not tied to each other. In fact a Christian must out of necessity live a litany of lies and deceptions when he/she practices his/her religion. Then he/she must abandon most of those beliefs in order to function in a normal world where science has taught us that so much of the bible is just medieval nonsense.
Whether religion belongs to the right or the left is not the question but the right appears to want to claim it now.
Whether religion belongs to the right or the left is not the question but the right appears to want to claim it now.
UShadItComing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 680
I don't know for sure about those ones but modern day leaders talk down to stupid people when they teach religion. Many religious leaers will even come out and be truthful about their difficulties in reconciling the facts with their bible's teaching. You need to spend some time at Richard Dawkins' website to see and understand that.
Unfortuantely Obama supporters are probably just as ignorant as you when it comes to religious believing.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in any Religions.... Really, get over yourself and stop using your tired stereotypes, makes you look silly.
UShadItComing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 680
Good that you are not a christian. That raises the question now of why you are intent on misleading people by posting a claim that religion has always been tied to politics and then asking if Obama supporters would subscribe to the idea. What is your point? More racism?
This all assumes that you take the Bible literally word for word. Most Christians that I know do not, and have no problem reconciling the themes in the Bible with everyday life.
The question is not did the world flood, the question is what does this story tell me about living a better life.
UShadItComing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 680
And the flood is only one part of what I mean when I say they have to live the lies. You christians simply need a new revised edition.
Werbung:
You are denouncing religion based on a very small group on fundamentalists. Most normal people do not think the world flooded or that Joshua blew his trumpets and the walls of Jericho collapsed.
Most people accept that these are stories that are meant to have a different meaning. Much like fables.
