- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,972
- Reaction score
- 12
- Location
- The UK
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Meanwhile, since God is nothing but a figment of your imagination, and of the imaginations of those people that wrote a very flawed book, why should that book be relied upon as a moral guide?
Strawman Akhbar said:No problem at all. Spend the rest of your life turning over rocks. Don't stop until you caught god. Then come back and we'll talk again.
If you can't prove there's a god, clearly you can't argue against those who claim that it's a figment of your imagination.
Remember, you're the one making the assertion that something exists without evidence. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
So you agree, then that the bible is no guide for morality. Very good.
Meanwhile, since God is nothing but a figment of your imagination, and of the imaginations of those people that wrote a very flawed book, why should that book be relied upon as a moral guide?
"Why should that book be relied upon as a moral guide?'
doughgirl said:Personally I believe that without God morality is arbitrary. So if there is no God and nothing exists beyond what we can see, why should a person be moral at all?
I f god does not exist then why should we sacrifice our lives for others?
It is easy for people who believe in God. God is their moral guide. He gives us our moral order. What kind of world makes the best sense out of our moral intuitions, our sense of guilt and our belief in the intrinsic value of persons-naturalism or theism?
The Real McCoy said:If hyperbole is your game, I'll play too.
What do you think? That Jesus is some dope smoking, sexaholic, communist long haired version of Jesse Jackson?
ravens24 said:It seems to me that people are believing in God less and less. Soon enough, America will become like Europe. If there is no God, then nothing is wrong. I see this as a Liberal squawking point. Liberals..those who think anything to do with God is bad and that nothing is wrong and everything should be legalized. Why isnt mureder legalized? I mean..theres no God, so there was no commandment ever saying not to kill somebody. I mean..what if it was you're religion. Oh wait thats right..they alread stand up for terrorists rights. Silly me. How bout that ACLU, the people in charge there would be delighted to find out theres a God when they die, and that the morals and values that are taught in the Bible were really true!
hipsterdufus said:Oh here we go. :roll: You are so uninformed it doesn't warrant a response.
There have been countless threads here on this topic.
Liberals are in favor of the freedom to worship or not worship.
Certainly one can have morals and values without believing in the bible, and vice-versa.
The ACLU has defended workers who want to wear a cross at work, the have defended a Catholic man who was being coerced to convert to the Pentecostal faith. These are just two quick examples.
Do your homework.
“The ACLU has defended workers who want to wear a cross at work, the have defended a Catholic man who was being coerced to convert to the Pentecostal faith. These are just two quick examples.”
vergiss said:I fail to see how sex and pot have anything to do with helping the poor.
Pray tell, raven - what's wrong with Europe? :neutral:
SouthernDemocrat said:What do you think? That Jesus is some greedy, hate mongering, materialistic, self righteous long haired version of Jerry Falwell?
doughgirl said:Oh please….don't even get me started ont he ACLU and how they do such great humanitarian work.
They work very hard all over the country to ban the Bible because they claim its hate language….then they turn around and protect NAMBLA literature.(North America Man Boy Love Association) They defend pedophile organizations.
Every hear of Jeff Curley?
The ACLU defended the two men who actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They lured 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to their apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, where they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days.
Both men were convicted of the crimes and are serving life sentences. NAMBLA DEFENDED THE MEN PRO-BONO. They defended them because when they investigated the two mens apartments they found NAMBLA literature and manuals, "Rape and Escape" that graphically details pedophiles and how to make friends and lure their prey, rape, avoid detection and prosecuation.
The ACLU defended them (free speech) then asked the judge to impose a gag order on the case. So facts about NAMBLA wouldnt get out to the public. How ironic that the ACLU who claim to be defenders of free speech wanted a gag order.
After the 9-11 terrorist attacks the ACLU PRINTED AND DISTRIBUTED a pamphlet in seven languages telling men how to legally avoid answering police who were conducting investigations into individuals who just might be in this country to disperse nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Whose side are they on?
It is an interesting fact that the ACLU has been closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States and was probed in the early 30’s by the United States House of Representatives special committee to investigate communist activities in the United States. On January 17, 1931, the committee report stated.
“The ACLU is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the U.S. and fully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, and free assembly but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government, replacing the American flag by a red flag and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by the Federal Constitution.” (Claire chambers, The SIECUS Circle (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1977), 62.)
In 1969, David Gumaer a police undercover agent, revealed that “206 past leading members of the ACLU had a combined record of 1,754 officially cited Communist front affiliations. “ (Documentation about Gumaer was taken from William Donahue, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1985).
Interesting and scary thought that Ruth Ginsberg, one of our Supreme Court Justices today, used to be an active and vocal ACLU member.
Personally I think the ACLU goes over the top protecting claiming that it speaks for the First Amendment. They are an evil organization. They have current policies advocating the legalization of child porn distribution and possession.
doughgirl said:Everyone knows that Ruthie was a member of the ACLU.
I gave these two sources… (Documentation about Gumaer was taken from William Donahue, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1985).
also
Claire Chambers, The SIECUS Circle (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1977), 62.)
Unholy War, by Randall Price………………..about the ACLU distributing pamplets also this website.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25916
About NAMBLA:
http://www.operationlookout.org/lookoutmag/aclutodefendnambla.htm
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967786/replies?c=40
tryreading said:Again, can you please show links related to what you were talking about, the Curley case. Who is Ruthie? I searched using ruthie, curley, murder, defend, and pedophile, no dice. Also, the WND article has nothing to do with the case that I could see.
The Real McCoy said:The SCOTUS justice.
doughgirl said:Oh please….don't even get me started ont he ACLU and how they do such great humanitarian work.
They work very hard all over the country to ban the Bible because they claim its hate language….then they turn around and protect NAMBLA literature.(North America Man Boy Love Association) They defend pedophile organizations.
Every hear of Jeff Curley?
The ACLU defended the two men who actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They lured 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to their apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, where they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days.
Both men were convicted of the crimes and are serving life sentences. NAMBLA DEFENDED THE MEN PRO-BONO. They defended them because when they investigated the two mens apartments they found NAMBLA literature and manuals, "Rape and Escape" that graphically details pedophiles and how to make friends and lure their prey, rape, avoid detection and prosecuation.
The ACLU defended them (free speech) then asked the judge to impose a gag order on the case. So facts about NAMBLA wouldnt get out to the public. How ironic that the ACLU who claim to be defenders of free speech wanted a gag order.
After the 9-11 terrorist attacks the ACLU PRINTED AND DISTRIBUTED a pamphlet in seven languages telling men how to legally avoid answering police who were conducting investigations into individuals who just might be in this country to disperse nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Whose side are they on?
It is an interesting fact that the ACLU has been closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States and was probed in the early 30’s by the United States House of Representatives special committee to investigate communist activities in the United States. On January 17, 1931, the committee report stated.
“The ACLU is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the U.S. and fully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, and free assembly but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government, replacing the American flag by a red flag and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by the Federal Constitution.” (Claire chambers, The SIECUS Circle (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1977), 62.)
In 1969, David Gumaer a police undercover agent, revealed that “206 past leading members of the ACLU had a combined record of 1,754 officially cited Communist front affiliations. “ (Documentation about Gumaer was taken from William Donahue, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1985).
Interesting and scary thought that Ruth Ginsberg, one of our Supreme Court Justices today, used to be an active and vocal ACLU member.
Personally I think the ACLU goes over the top protecting claiming that it speaks for the First Amendment. They are an evil organization. They have current policies advocating the legalization of child porn distribution and possession.
hipsterdufus said:Certainly one can have morals and values without believing in the bible, and vice-versa.
.
I am a liberal Christian.ravens24 said:It seems to me that people are believing in God less and less. Soon enough, America will become like Europe. If there is no God, then nothing is wrong. I see this as a Liberal squawking point. Liberals..those who think anything to do with God is bad and that nothing is wrong and everything should be legalized.
As a liberal Christian I not only believe murder to be wrong, I believe frivilous abortion, and the death penalty to be wrong.ravens24 said:Why isnt mureder legalized?
"Commandments"? So what you're really saying is that in order for there to be a ban on murder ALL must be Christian? Wow, you need to get out more. Most religions and cultures (and I'm not talking about perversions of religions: Muslim extremists, KKK, etc.) have within their "rules" that murder is wrong. In fact, secular humanists and other non-religious people will agree. You don't need a specific religion to tell you that is wrong. You're really reaching.and I mean..theres no God, so there was no commandment ever saying not to kill somebody.
Look into the ACLU a bit. I wouldn't say I'm a huge supporter of the ACLU or any legal group just like I'm not a big sports fan. It's just not my thing. But the ACLU protects rights. They have also stood up for the rights of the religious community. That is not often covered in the news. The ACLU typically comes in when a less powerful group is being stomped on by a more powerful group. On the side of the little guy, you might say.Silly me. How bout that ACLU, the people in charge there would be delighted to find out theres a God when they die, and that the morals and values that are taught in the Bible were really true!
Navy Pride said:I believe a lot of Liberals wish there was no God........After all they want him out of everything...It seems like every day they are complaining about something with God in it be it the Pledge of Allegiance or in the schools......
And the conservatives seem to love that old saying. A murderer? Let's fry 'em!! What, they have weapons (albiet less than ours)? Let's bomb 'em!! Such knee-jerk reactions from this bunch. If we're going at this on a religious level, especially a Christian level - as the original poster suggested, then I would like to have all turn to the Book of Matthew. An eye for an eye hasn't been valid in Christianity for oh about 2000-ish years.Navy Pride said:The Mantra of the sixties by the left was "If it feels good do it."
"Again, can you please show links related to what you were talking about, the Curley case. Who is Ruthie? I searched using ruthie, curley, murder, defend, and pedophile, no dice. Also, the WND article has nothing to do with the case that I could see."
doughgirl said::rofl I am so sorry....by Ruthie I meant Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Sorry. Just type in Ginsberg and ACLU and a lot will come up about her associtation with them. I am so sorry…I took for granted everyone would know who she was. Sorry.
I only made mention of the ACLU and the pamplet they put out after 9-11…to show that I think they are a destructive organization that does not have Americas best interest at heart.
Here is the website for the 9-11 story……
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25916
Here is the NAMBLA one…
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967786/replies?c=40
People say the ACLU fights for free speech…..yet
why did they petition to get the judge in the Curley case to issue a gag order? What happened to free speech there? The free speech of Jeff Curleys lawyer and family?
Like I have said in the past…If there was really freedom of speech you would be able to say things at anytime and anywhere and not be penalized for it. Seems to me that a teacher can’t get up and talk religion in our public schools can they?
The ACLU has offered material supporting the past to those who publically preach pedophilia AND encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is hostile to the Boy Scouts but champions having sex with children.
Now in our country it is illegal to have sex with children, yet the ACLU defends the right to publish literature that shows how you do this. Particularly NAMBLA’s "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships." Chapters explain how to build relationships with children, how to gain the confidence of children's parents, details where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught... AND there is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight.
So the ACLU is really defending NAMBLAS right to teach people to break the law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?