• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Islam at it's core would want to over throw the Constitution

NolanVoyd said: Huh?

It means "so must christianity".

How can I make that three word sentence more clear?

Do you need a dictionary?

The Baron: You could try learning to communicate and simply explain your point.

There's simply no need in being a jerk about it.

DataPoint: He is being clear, not a jerk. You seem to refuse logical meanings and conclusions.
 
Strawman. Nobody is arguing for a theocracy.
The leftwing atheists have NO ****ING ideas what it would be like to live in a theocracy, but throw the word around like they have even a smidgen of a clue. Sometimes I wish we could transport these dumb ****ers to Afghanistan for about a month, and let them live a real theocracy, then bring them back here so they can STFU. The stupidity is maddening.
 
The leftwing atheists have NO ****ING ideas what it would be like to live in a theocracy, but throw the word around like they have even a smidgen of a clue. Sometimes I wish we could transport these dumb ****ers to Afghanistan for about a month, and let them live a real theocracy, then bring them back here so they can STFU. The stupidity is maddening.
Stupid is all they know. It's why they're "left-wingers".
 
No red-blooded wants to live in an evangelical Christian state.
 
ataraxia, no one is disputing your point. Muslims have been in the states since the beginning.

We are a secular state that protects peoples' rights to believe as they wish, or not.

You are arguing a non-point.

If it is the evangelicals you are worried about, don't.
 
Same with Islam.
Since when have there ever been enough muslims in the USA to ever pose much of a threat? I think they currently make up only 1% of the population. Although your statement is accurate it is hardly a fair comparison.
 
Strawman. Nobody is arguing for a theocracy.

Datapoint: "Christians consider only the Lord as their king."
The Baron: "Beats the state. Why is this a problem?"

Were you not implying that it would be better to live in a country ruled by religion and not a secular government? That's what I inferred from your statement. If that's not what you meant then what did you mean?
 
Datapoint: "Christians consider only the Lord as their king."
The Baron: "Beats the state. Why is this a problem?"

Were you not implying that it would be better to live in a country ruled by religion and not a secular government? That's what I inferred from your statement. If that's not what you meant then what did you mean?
Where did I say that? Why do you make up things that I did not say, or you to take things out of context?
 
ataraxia, no one is disputing your point. Muslims have been in the states since the beginning.

We are a secular state that protects peoples' rights to believe as they wish, or not.

You are arguing a non-point.

If it is the evangelicals you are worried about, don't.
The above is for Lost in Seattle.
 
Where did I say that? Why do you make up things that I did not say, or you to take things out of context?
Post #19, you said exactly that.

If I took it out of context, I did not mean to and I apologize - the conversation was already a bit muddied at that point - but it doesn't change TheBaron's response.
 
Datapoint: "Christians consider only the Lord as their king."
The Baron: "Beats the state. Why is this a problem?"

Were you not implying that it would be better to live in a country ruled by religion and not be a secular government? That's what I inferred from your statement. If that's not what you meant then what did you mean?
1. I have never argued for a theocracy nor have I ever heard of anyone other Christian argue for a theocracy. This is simply a strawman that leftist do so enjoy throwing around.

2. While I'm not want a theocracy I do believe what Martin Luther King, Jr. said on this point which, I believe, is exactly what the Founding Fathers believed. To quote Mr. King, "The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool."

3. In America we have no king, however, legal positivism is a very leftist view and one that will only be adopted by America at the peril of Americans. We should all make Christ our King and only elect those leaders who share that view. Paraphrasing Dell Tacket, "the king who forgets God will soon become God. And the King who thinks he's God will soon become the devil."

He's right. Happens every time.
 
1. I have never argued for a theocracy nor have I ever heard of anyone other Christian argue for a theocracy. This is simply a strawman that leftist do so enjoy throwing around.
My question to you was not a straw man but rather my attempt to understand wtf you were saying.
2. While I'm not want a theocracy I do believe what Martin Luther King, Jr. said on this point which, I believe, is exactly what the Founding Fathers believed. To quote Mr. King, "The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool."
You're saying that you want the moral basis of state action to be rooted in religion, specifically Christianity. Which version of Christianity?
3. In America we have no king, however, legal positivism is a very leftist view and one that will only be adopted by America at the peril of Americans.
I don't agree that legal positivism is necessarily leftist, but that's a much broader discussion. Certainly, natural law and natural rights have "liberal" applications.
We should all make Christ our King and only elect those leaders who share that view. Paraphrasing Dell Tacket, "the king who forgets God will soon become God. And the King who thinks he's God will soon become the devil."
So you're saying that we should all be Christian and that we should elect only Christian leaders. How is this not a thinly veiled form of theocracy, if a theocracy is a system of government which recognizes a divinity as the supreme ruling authority? Our Constitution recognizes The People as the supreme ruling authority. The two are not compatible, and it is clear which one you favor. Our Founders deliberately steered away from your choice because Christian sectarianism had engendered so much war and strife in Europe's recent history. There is no empirical, history-based, fact-based reason to conclude that a country whose government cohered around Christianity (or most religions) as a governing principle would be peaceful or well-governed.

This goes back to my question to you at the top: which version of Christianity? The Abrahamic religions tend towards intolerance of ideological impurity, and with the exception of Judaism, are overtly proselytizing.

It appears that I was right after all. You do seem to want to live in a theocracy and a religiously monochrome state, and you would like to see this country governed theocratically.
 
Post #19, you said exactly that.

If I took it out of context, I did not mean to and I apologize - the conversation was already a bit muddied at that point - but it doesn't change TheBaron's response.
You are right: I did write it. I was right: you took it out of context. Shame on both of us.
 
Since when have there ever been enough muslims in the USA to ever pose much of a threat? I think they currently make up only 1% of the population. Although your statement is accurate it is hardly a fair comparison.

Any religion at its core, and given enough power, would pose a threat to the Constitution. It's not just Islam. The Constitution is not a Christian document, but a secular one: it assumes that government and politics work better when power is given to the people as a whole, rather than any special religious group who claims to have some special access to God and His intentions. That, at its core, it goes against the entire religious worldview.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison

"It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. *** The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether***, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov. "
-James Madison

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."
-James Madison

(cont'd)
 
Last edited:
"Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America...All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish (Muslim), appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Payne

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory..., more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"'The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
-John Adams

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history... [T]he detail of the formation of the American governments... may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven... it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses... Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.”
― John Adams, The Political Writings of John Adams, [A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America, 1787]
 
1. I have never argued for a theocracy nor have I ever heard of anyone other Christian argue for a theocracy. This is simply a strawman that leftist do so enjoy throwing around.

2. While I'm not want a theocracy I do believe what Martin Luther King, Jr. said on this point which, I believe, is exactly what the Founding Fathers believed. To quote Mr. King, "The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool."

3. In America we have no king, however, legal positivism is a very leftist view and one that will only be adopted by America at the peril of Americans. We should all make Christ our King and only elect those leaders who share that view. Paraphrasing Dell Tacket, "the king who forgets God will soon become God. And the King who thinks he's God will soon become the devil."

He's right. Happens every time.

The experiment with secular democracy in the west, since the European enlightenment, has proved far more successful than when the church and its God ever were running things. They had a thousand years- their record was not that hot.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."
-James Madison

"Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America...All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish (Muslim), appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Payne
 
Back
Top Bottom