• 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!

Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

Well she can start by selling her $150,000 designer outfits and using the money to buy food for the poor and needy, like Jesus would.

Those outfits were returned over a year ago.
 

You obviously missed this -->.
 
So what exactly is the difference between her (and those that believe the same thing in the US) and the Islamic fundamentalists in say Iran? nothing.

If you have to ask that question, then there's no way anyone can help you see the light.
 

What?No Palin bashers want to address this?
 
Does tooth believe in jesus too?

Doubt it, which is why it's so funny. A non-believer telling a believer how to act like jesus? pffft, hilarious.
 
But that wouldn't make him a hypocrite is my only point.

Christians would do this world alot of good if they tried to be more like jesus was. Except for the performing miracles that would be silly.

Hell, the most ardent believers in torture in the US are christians. (NPR)
 
Hell, the most ardent believers in torture in the US are christians. (NPR)

The most ardent supporters of Sharia law are Muslims. Do you really wanna make that comparison?
 
Yeah two wrongs totally make a right. Thanks for pointing that out to me!
 
Yeah two wrongs totally make a right. Thanks for pointing that out to me!

Your boy appointed an Islamic outreach liason. Why aren't you crying about that? I'm sure if there were a Christian outreach liason, you would be beside yourself offense.
 
But that wouldn't make him a hypocrite is my only point.
Why wouldn't it? What gives him the authority to decide how christians should act? Do I suddenly have the authority to decide how muslims should act? If christians know little about jesus, then tooth knows nothing. His hypocrisy has been revealed.
 
Your boy appointed an Islamic outreach liason. Why aren't you crying about that? I'm sure if there were a Christian outreach liason, you would be beside yourself offense.

We'll they do both think that there is a war upon them. Except one is slightly more real than the other.

I dont think we need a christian outreach liaison the muslims are 'out' there and need reached out to. The christians are 'in' our country, or even 'are' our country. Thatd be a n inreach liaison.
 
Why wouldn't it? What gives him the authority to decide how christians should act? Do I suddenly have the authority to decide how muslims should act? If christians know little about jesus, then tooth knows nothing. His hypocrisy has been revealed.

Its not hypocritical because he doesnt follow jesus. Christians purpotedly do.

You do have a point.... /shrug.
 
Its not hypocritical because he doesnt follow jesus.
And yet, tooth pretends he knows exactly what jesus would do. :roll:
 


OMG!! Muslims are viciticrats, too? I guess you don't care that an religious position within the current administration is a violation of the Constitution. 'Course, since it's a PC violation.
 
The First Amendment, just like the other Nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights, is a worthless piece of ambiguous crap, dude. It could be reasonably construed to mean just about anything.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What part do you see as ambiguous crap? Read the words, use the standard dictionary meanings, and there is no ambiguity that I can see. My understanding is:

The federal government may not pass laws that:
1. establish an offical national religion
2. limit any religion or their practices
3. allow prosecution of people or other entities for their opinions or views
4. do not allow people to meet peaceably
5. do not allow people to utilize the judicial branch of the government
 
Most of that is ambiguous. For example:

1. Where do you draw the line between having a state religion and simply having religious displays on govt property?

2. What if I'm a voodoo practitioner and my religion requires me to practice cannibalism? Or if I'm a radical Muslim and my religion requires me to blow up the infidels. Should I have that right?

3. "Yelling 'fire' in a movie theater isn't proctected by the 1st Amendment"

Personally if I could go back in time, I'd have had the Founders' base our laws on common sense instead of an ambiguous constitution which to this day, people still argue over.
 
Last edited:
Its not hypocritical because he doesnt follow jesus. Christians purpotedly do.

You do have a point.... /shrug.
I'm more christlike than any Christian. All you have to do is study the teachings of Jesus to see what he'd do (whether you believe he's a god or not - Thomas Jefferson didn't and we still respect his views). Jesus would be rolling in his grave if he knew what modern Christianity has become.

If christians know little about jesus, then tooth knows nothing. His hypocrisy has been revealed.
I know more about Jesus than you do because I've studied his life and beliefs from objective historical sources instead of just repeating what my pastor tells me "Jesus would do". You're also the guy who doesn't know the difference between Darwin and Dawkins so I don't think you know much period, do you?
 
Last edited:
2. What if I'm a voodoo practitioner and my religion requires me to practice cannibalism? Or if I'm a radical Muslim and my religion requires me to blow up the infidels. Should I have that right?

This is IMO, the biggest problem with how it's written. What if your religion requires hallucinogenic materials in ritual practice such as the controlled substances in some native American religious rituals? What do we do when the religious rituals run directly into controlled substances laws or security issues?

Are we willing to say that a religion is not a religion? Who gets to do that?

Scientology is largely a financial engine to extract as much money from its members in return for vague promises. Some consider that fraud. Are we to allow that because it's a religious practice?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…