NationStates Jolt Archive

This is what you prefer to quote anyway, I bet you claim this is in the Constitution between the lines of the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendments:

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
-Anyone know the source?

Karl Marx. And I don't believe any man is dumb enough to think that's in the US Constitution.

Conscience and Truth, do me a favor ok? Tell me if these are your words:

In the long run, hopefully, seperation of church and state will result in the end of all religions. Then people will make their decisions based on what is best for man, not some invisible god(s).

The only religion I might exempt from this is Islam because it does not have the concept of seperation of church and state in it, and we have to work to be more tolerant of other faiths.

Found from here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11424192#post11424192

That's what ya said right? So did your opinion change and you are now suddenly a Christian? Or are you a troll?

FYI I'll be posting your conflicting quotes, and links to prove them, in just about every thread you find yourself in, just to show off your hypocracy.

And the Treaty of Tripoli does not 'only' say that. It says - Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

You can read this if you want, it addresses the holy (in the Evolutionist religion) Treaty of Tripoli:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5

That's what ya said right? So did your opinion change and you are now suddenly a Christian? Or are you a troll?

I'm a committed progressive Democrat, who makes the fundmentalist arguments occasionally because most aren't smart enough to use computers.

I suppose you're forgot that the 1st Amendment prohibits teaching faith when you wrote that.



Actually, in this peticular case, he is correct. Originally, the First Amendment just said what the federal government could and could not do. The writing is very clear in this case. The states were, for a time, given pretty much a free hand. They could ban religions (none of them did) or restrict the press or freedom of assembly.

This was changed in the 14th Amendment, where it was stated that the Bill of Rights were actually rights for the people, and not just a restriction of the federal government.

Washington was definitely a Christian. You are absolutely a joke and a revisionst. It's amazing how his comtemporaries and then for another 200 years Americans understood it this way, and then suddenly a socialist-humanist professor "discovers" Washington was actually an athiest-humanist?

I'm not claiming he's an atheist, nor is anyone here. And yes, it's amazing but historians actually attempt to learn real history rather than folklore. I love that you've not presented any evidence to the contrary, just namecalling and trolling.



Which graduate school are you enrolled in right now? Isn't six years long enough for your doctorate in sociology?

What are you talking about? Why are you constantly just making things up about me?



This is what you prefer to quote anyway, I bet you claim this is in the Constitution between the lines of the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendments:

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
-Anyone know the source?


Um what does quotes from the communist manifesto have to do with anything? Did you run out of arguments so now you just blather on about things that have nothing to do with anything? In all honesty, one has to wonder about posts of this calibre and what would cause a person to consider them an argument.

You can read this if you want, it addresses the holy (in the Evolutionist religion) Treaty of Tripoli:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5

Ha. Whatever, troll. Are you claiming it doesn't say that? Are you claiming that you can find any official document in American history that counters such a strong statement by the founders.

And it still is a limited federal government with certain powers.

No shit? And you probably mean pact. Compact is an adjective (verb sometimes) that basically means small.

Because obviously, states can't place bans on certain things. :rolleyes:



Because they obviously forgot to put God in the Constitution, because it doesn't make sense to leave Him (or whatever the Hell you want to call God) out for a reason. :rolleyes:



Because Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, Islam, and not to mention many other religions in America are all denominations of Christianity. :rolleyes:



I suppose you're forgot that the 1st Amendment prohibits teaching faith when you wrote that.

...

Something tells me you're BSing most of this.



I don't believe the Constitution was a speech. And he's basically saying that he does not believe that they are ready to live without religion.

America was not founded on either Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, or Islam. We are tolerant of these faiths because we are a nation, under God, who tolerates other people. But the idea that those faiths had any role in the Founding is silly. They also represent a tiny fraction of the current American population.

The First Amendment never prohibited the teaching of faith, even in the government-operated (public) schools. However, while prayer should be restored to the government-operated schools, it would simply be better to give parents the option to pick the school their children attend, including options for a religion-based school, secular humanist school, or for any other type of school that parents desire for their children.

I'm a committed progressive Democrat, who makes the fundmentalist arguments occasionally because most aren't smart enough to use computers.

Did you just admit to trolling?

You can read this if you want, it addresses the holy (in the Evolutionist religion) Treaty of Tripoli:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5

Evolution is not, I repeat, not a religion. It is a scientific theory uniting the findings of many sets of observations and expiriments. Or basically, it is not based on faith. To call Evolution a religion is completely ignorant.

Did you just admit to trolling?

I oppose trolling strongly.

I used to clarify each time, but it was getting hard to put it before every post. I am a strong mainstream/progressive Democrat who strongly supports the complete separation of church and state, however, since their are no fundamentalists on the Forum, I like to offer their arguments for the sake of debate.

I'm a committed progressive Democrat, who makes the fundmentalist arguments occasionally because most aren't smart enough to use computers.


Ahhh I see. Well I must say you've not done a good job at explaining that, so allow me to post the following letter in every thread I find you in:

Hello dear poster,

I see you have attempted to engage Conscience and Truth in conversation. Please be aware of the individual you are speaking with.

This individual has stated, within the same thread:

In the long run, hopefully, seperation of church and state will result in the end of all religions. Then people will make their decisions based on what is best for man, not some invisible god(s).

The only religion I might exempt from this is Islam because it does not have the concept of seperation of church and state in it, and we have to work to be more tolerant of other faiths.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11424192#post11424192

and

Gaia is not the origin of Rights. The Christian God (the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob) is the origin. Name a neo-pagan society that believes in the inviolate nature of life, and of our sacred rights.

Christian morality is the highest of all the existing faiths, which argues for its truth. If you believe in Jesus Christ, as your Lord and Savior, then you need to love your neighbor by teaching him about our Lord.

The govenrment must submit to God, through the People, if it doesn't, our rights mean nothing.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11424192#post11424192

When asked to explain this apparent contradiction he offered only this:

I'm a committed progressive Democrat, who makes the fundmentalist arguments occasionally because most aren't smart enough to use computers.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11433509#post11433509

So do be aware of who you're dealing with, and keep in mind what kind of person this is.



Now since you have not been clear in your purpose, I will happily point it out to everyone you speak with.

Evolution is not, I repeat, not a religion. It is a scientific theory uniting the findings of many sets of observations and expiriments. Or basically, it is not based on faith. To call Evolution a religion is completely ignorant.

Oh yes, many sets of observations and experiments, the mark of an advanced mind. Tell me, UCK, what biology (and related) classes you have taken in your education thus far?

Ahhh I see. Well I must say you've not done a good job at explaining that, so allow me to post the following letter in every thread I find you in:

Arthais, why do you hate me?

I like you! :fluffle: Look a big kiss!

I oppose trolling strongly.

I used to clarify each time, but it was getting hard to put it before every post. I am a strong mainstream/progressive Democrat who strongly supports the complete separation of church and state, however, since their are no fundamentalists on the Forum, I like to offer their arguments for the sake of debate.

I will be sure then to include my explination whenever convenient, to save you the trouble.

I will be sure then to include my explination whenever convenient, to save you the trouble.

How do you explain me?

Did you like me better as myself, mainstream Democrat? or as a fundamentalist?

Which are you closer to?

More forum graffiti from the troll-the-mods-refuse-to-ban.

More forum graffiti from the troll-the-mods-refuse-to-ban.

I don't think I was making bad arguments. :gundge:

Ban me if necessary. I just wanted to offer another POV. :(

I support Ned Lamont and Jon Tester, and I love NationStates and all the people on the Forum. :(

How do you explain me?

Did you like me better as myself, mainstream Democrat? or as a fundamentalist?

Which are you closer to?

Personally? I don't believe you care one way or the other. I believe you just pick the most extreme position one way or the othe where ever you think it will get you the biggest fight. Posting not to promote ideas but soley to stir shit up is trolling.

Thus whenever I believe someone is starting to think you are serious, I will show you as a troll, until not a single person on this forum will engage you in your ludicrus banter, until the mods finally get around to banning you.

Personally? I don't believe you care one way or the other. I believe you just pick the most extreme position one way or the othe where ever you think it will get you the biggest fight. Posting not to promote ideas but soley to stir shit up is trolling.

Thus whenever I believe someone is starting to think you are serious, I will show you as a troll, until not a single person on this forum will engage you in your ludicrus banter, until the mods finally get around to banning you.

I make real arguments, not fake ones. I don't want to cause any trouble. :(

All my progressive arguments are backed up my mainstream Democratic organizations like the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, NARAL: Prochoice America, People for the American Way, the ACLU, etc.

All my fundamentalist arguments are backed up by various right-wing sources.

Arthais, can we instead be friends? I think I once tried to ask where you were from?

I make real arguments, not fake ones. I don't want to cause any trouble. :(

All my progressive arguments are backed up my mainstream Democratic organizations like the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, NARAL: Prochoice America, People for the American Way, the ACLU, etc.

All my fundamentalist arguments are backed up by various right-wing sources.

Arthais, can we instead be friends? I think I once tried to ask where you were from?

Answer me this, why would you promote an argument you did NOT believe in, other than to simply cause an argument (IE the definition of trolling).

And don't say "to make their arguments for them" there are plenty here more intelligent than you who can make them for themselves.

I oppose trolling strongly.

I used to clarify each time, but it was getting hard to put it before every post. I am a strong mainstream/progressive Democrat who strongly supports the complete separation of church and state, however, since their are no fundamentalists on the Forum, I like to offer their arguments for the sake of debate.

You're not presenting their argument or ours. You're bastardizing their argument and in doing so bastardizing ours and embarrassing yourself in the meantime.

Answer me this, why would you promote an argument you did NOT believe in, other than to simply cause an argument (IE the definition of trolling).

And don't say "to make their arguments for them" there are plenty here more intelligent than you who can make them for themselves.

Becauyse I was tired of all the attacks on fundies and no fundies to respond. In the ranks of computer geeks and Great Britain and other core groups on this Forum (possibly even including pedophiles if you read some topics, which is scary), there are very few fundies among them.

America was not founded on either Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, or Islam. We are tolerant of these faiths because we are a nation,

With no standard religion

under God,

If you believe in him.

who tolerates other people.

Just like Dubya tolerates homosexuals.

But the idea that those faiths had any role in the Founding is silly.

Because obviously I said that they had roles in founding America, and not pointing out your ignorance to the fact that Christianity is not the only religion in America.

They also represent a tiny fraction of the current American population.

Because minorities don't count at all in the US, even if they are citizens.

However, while prayer should be restored to the government-operated schools,

Because forcing people to pray even if they don't believe in God is good for them.

it would simply be better to give parents the option to pick the school their children attend, including options for a religion-based school,

Because forcing kids into religion-based schools isn't an infringment of freedom of religion.

or for any other type of school that parents desire for their children.

Like military school! Oh boy!

You're not presenting their argument or ours. You're bastardizing their argument and in doing so bastardizing ours and embarrassing yourself in the meantime.

But I was quoting Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. I think this is the same argument they would make. I'm trying hard to make a clear case for the Christian/Republican viewpoint in contrast to the super-super-majority, including mine, secular/Democrat viewpoint.

Becauyse I was tired of all the attacks on fundies and no fundies to respond.

Picking an argument soley for the point of making the argument without any belief is the definition of trolling.

Part of this issue resides in another error in historical teaching.

Remember, the idea of the federal Constitution, particularly before the Civil War, was that of a limited federal government with only certain enumerated powers. It was a compact between the sovereign States. While it was encouraged that individual citizens learn the Constitution, it was also intended that it would have little impact on citizens everyday lives.

Since the usurpation of state power by the federal government, particularly during the 1930's, the omission of God has been read too significantly. The federal government was supposed to be neutral between the Christian denominations, but the states were free to teach whatever level of faith and morality that the people wanted.

George Washington, (NOT an obscure letter he wrote to an individual citizen)
FAREWELL ADDRESS:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Washington was referring to common religious morals. In all of your arguments, you were right about one thing: Judeo-Christian morals were prevelant in the founding of this country. However, the morals put forth by these religions were ones that people of all different faiths could agree on: the right to life, individual liberty, prosperity, freedom from harm, etc. Washington, who never singles out one particular religion in this speech, was clearly referring to these common morals, and not the religions that the Founders found their root in. Let us not forget that this was an age where atheism was uncommon, or at least often thought to be a bizarre, quirky belief. So, in that day and age, morals were inherently tied to religion, because the idea of a common morality that did not necessarily reflect religion was not in mainstream existence yet. So Washington was obligated to refer to religion when discussing these common morals, but his discussing of them was not intended to serve as an endorsement of a particular set of religious beliefs.

Because forcing people to pray even if they don't believe in God is good for them.

Because forcing kids into religion-based schools isn't an infringment of freedom of religion.

Allowing parents to pick schools for their children is currently a right, and only the far-left makes the case that children-themselves have a right to pick a school separate from their parents. (Some professors even argue that when parents teach children a certain language from birth that it is "oppressing" the child with the native culture/language.)

You don't have a right to say that our government can exist separate from God, because you put the very rights you enjoy in jeapordy for all of us.

Your lack of belief in God is likely not even a careful review of the evidence, but more likely to do with teenage rebellion and/or on the humanist viewpoint "if it feels good, do it."

I'm trying hard to make a clear case for the Christian/Republican viewpoint.

Don't. Let them make it for themselves. Making arguments just for the sake of causing arguments is trolling. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this further shows to me that you're a troll.

But I was quoting Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. I think this is the same argument they would make. I'm trying hard to make a clear case for the Christian/Republican viewpoint in contrast to the super-super-majority, including mine, secular/Democrat viewpoint.

If you're really trying, I weep. There is a rational argument to be made, it just relies on ignoring certain evidence. You don't just ignore evidence, your actual arguments don't make any sense. Your conclusion don't follow your claims. If you think what you're doing passes for debate, you're wrong. And if you really like being here, you should really read the OSRS.

Allowing parents to pick schools for their children is currently a right, and only the far-left makes the case that children-themselves have a right to pick a school separate from their parents. (Some professors even argue that when parents teach children a certain language from birth that it is "oppressing" the child with the native culture/language.)

You don't have a right to say that our government can exist separate from God, because you put the very rights you enjoy in jeapordy for all of us.

Your lack of belief in God is likely not even a careful review of the evidence, but more likely to do with teenage rebellion and/or on the humanist viewpoint "if it feels good, do it."

Hello dear poster,

I see you have attempted to engage Conscience and Truth in conversation. Please be aware of the individual you are speaking with.

This individual has stated, within the same thread:

In the long run, hopefully, seperation of church and state will result in the end of all religions. Then people will make their decisions based on what is best for man, not some invisible god(s).

The only religion I might exempt from this is Islam because it does not have the concept of seperation of church and state in it, and we have to work to be more tolerant of other faiths.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11424192#post11424192

and

Gaia is not the origin of Rights. The Christian God (the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob) is the origin. Name a neo-pagan society that believes in the inviolate nature of life, and of our sacred rights.

Christian morality is the highest of all the existing faiths, which argues for its truth. If you believe in Jesus Christ, as your Lord and Savior, then you need to love your neighbor by teaching him about our Lord.

The govenrment must submit to God, through the People, if it doesn't, our rights mean nothing.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11424192#post11424192

When asked to explain this apparent contradiction he offered only this:

I'm a committed progressive Democrat, who makes the fundmentalist arguments occasionally because most aren't smart enough to use computers.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11433509#post11433509

So do be aware of who you're dealing with, and keep in mind what kind of person this is.

not intended to serve as an endorsement of a particular set of religious beliefs.

The Founders believed in the most perfect nature of Christianity. Even the handful of deists realized that the morality of Christianity is undoubtedly the strongest of all faiths.

It would make no sense that all the people that came here to either found religious communities in freedom, or seek economic freedom, would then endorse a Constitution with the idea that their communities were going to told that they can not longer maintain their common morality. Or, on the economic front, that they were going to be obligated to pay taxes far in excess of their portion of the protection of their life, liberty and property.

Which brings me to Article I of the Massachusetts Constitution, which precedes 2 and 3, which definitely endorse a religious perspective. The Preamble and first three articles of the Massachusetts Constitution, which was written in 1780, only 7 years before the federal Constitution, and 11 years before the Bill of Rights:


PREAMBLE.

The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.

And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.

Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

Hello dear poster,
.

You put this in the wrong thread.

Arthais, please don't obsess with dislike for me.

I want to make peace with you. I'm sorry for upsetting you. I really think you are a good person. Let's make peace.

Let's make peace.

Once you stop trolling.

Until then, that post goes up whenever i see you do it. After all, as you said, let's make all sides of the argument, yes? My side of the argument is your full of shit.

And I will cite my evidence to support it, until I have a reason to believe otherwise.

Cheers.

OSRS.

Oh Jocabia, I'm sorry. What is the OSRS, a rule book? I'm not that bright in either case.

I don't think I'm trying to make an argument to upset people. I just want to make counterarguments.

I feel this is really you and a few others being upset with the fundamentalist viewpoint and wanting it completely supressed. BogMarsh has his whole topic shut down because it was a passionate view from the Republican side, and it make effective points.

If making a conservative point is offensive and must be suppressed, I suppose the ideas of free speech, which not binding on the Forum, aren't really accepted here.

I just want to troll.



Fixed.

Once you stop trolling.

Until then, that post goes up whenever i see you do it. After all, as you said, let's make all sides of the argument, yes? My side of the argument is your full of shit.

And I will cite my evidence to support it, until I have a reason to believe otherwise.

Cheers.

Arthais, I'm trying to make the point in this topic. I know you don't like the idea of Christianity being a major part of the Founding, but trying to shut me down for offering a valid POV, isn't very good, now is it?

Why don't you offer a counterargument to the Seperation instead.

I really like you, and I'm praying for you. I hope you do well in school and in your work.

If making a conservative point is offensive and must be suppressed

Making a post, ANY post, that is made for the purpose of stirring an argument is trolling, which is offensive and must be suppressed.

Make your OWN damned arguments, not arguments for other people.

Fixed.

I don't want to troll at all. I feel so bad. I wish I could take back all my arguments.

I'll be sad because I really love NationStates and the Forum.

It will be a loss for the conservative side, because I feel I make their case far better than they do, even though I'm a progressive.

.


More forum graffiti from the troll-the-mods-refuse-to-ban.

Making a post, ANY post, that is made for the purpose of stirring an argument is trolling, which is offensive and must be suppressed.

Make your OWN damned arguments, not arguments for other people.

I believe in the legitimacy of the argument, and want to stimulate discussion. The other POV is just to agree with everything. For example, most discussions will go like this:

OP: Who wants to see Goerge Bush out of office?

Post 1: I do. meh.

Post 2: He is killing kids in Iraq. meh.

Post 3: George Bush only cares about the rich. meh.


Arthais, I seriously want to be freindly with you, and I;m sorry for upsetting you so much. Can we take it out of the Forum and talk about this. I'm so sorry, and I want to learn more about your POV on certain issues.

I don't want to troll at all. I feel so bad. I wish I could take back all my arguments.

I'll be sad because I really love NationStates and the Forum.

It will be a loss for the conservative side, because I feel I make their case far better than they do, even though I'm a progressive.

The only way your leaving would be a "loss for the conservative side" would be that your constanly claiming to be a "progressive" makes the extremist right policies seem more sensible.

I don't want to troll at all. I feel so bad. I wish I could take back all my arguments.

I'll be sad because I really love NationStates and the Forum.

It will be a loss for the conservative side, because I feel I make their case far better than they do, even though I'm a progressive.

Look, it's not really helping to take the conservative side, so it'd be best for you to just stop now before it gets any worse. I'm willing to forgive you.

Look, it's not really helping to take the conservative side, so it'd be best for you to just stop now before it gets any worse. I'm willing to forgive you.

Thanks UCK. I will go back to being a committed mainstream progressive Democrat ONLY. If anyone ever wants a conservative argument, I'll wait until I'm asked for it.

Let's stop our fighting. Can we all argree on John Lennon's basic beliefs as he stated them in Imagine?

Whenever I think of offering the right-wing argument, I'll say this in my head:
Racist, sexist, anti-gay, right-wing bigot go away.

I hope everyone will forgive me for trollish behavior. :( I never intended it that way at all.

To anyone I've upset, please write to me through the NationStates telegram feature, and I will do my best to offer anything you request to make up for it. I really think you all are very intelligent and insightful.

Alright, enough.

It's obvious to me that CaT did not know what trolling was before you all told him. He thought he was just adding spice to the forums. He knows better now.


You all are not helping at all. He knows better now.

CaT, on these forums, the best policy it to be truthful to yourself, whatever they may be. If you wish to debate, present your arguments in a clear manor, but be sure they are your arguments and beliefs. Expressing your beliefs in a clear, consise, and civilized manor will not get you banned. Expressing someone else's beliefs will get you banned.

Just start over.

The Founders believed in the most perfect nature of Christianity. Even the handful of deists realized that the morality of Christianity is undoubtedly the strongest of all faiths.

It would make no sense that all the people that came here to either found religious communities in freedom, or seek economic freedom, would then endorse a Constitution with the idea that their communities were going to told that they can not longer maintain their common morality. Or, on the economic front, that they were going to be obligated to pay taxes far in excess of their portion of the protection of their life, liberty and property.

Which brings me to Article I of the Massachusetts Constitution, which precedes 2 and 3, which definitely endorse a religious perspective. The Preamble and first three articles of the Massachusetts Constitution, which was written in 1780, only 7 years before the federal Constitution, and 11 years before the Bill of Rights:


PREAMBLE.

The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.

And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.

Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
You do realize that by quoting that last part of my post and responding only to that, you ignored everything else that I typed. In that post, I described that this common religious morality was intended to be preserved because the morals set down by Christianity in the way that the Founders believed them were ones that could be agreed upon by all people. They wanted to see the common ideas of respecting others, protecting people from harm, etc., but not at the expense of legislating the specific beliefs of Christianity in relation to Jesus, the prophets, and so forth, because the Founders understood the consequences of theocratic rule.

dishonesty


More forum graffiti, &c.

You do realize that by quoting that last part of my post and responding only to that, you ignored everything else that I typed. In that post, I described that this common religious morality was intended to be preserved because the morals set down by Christianity in the way that the Founders believed them were ones that could be agreed upon by all people. They wanted to see the common ideas of respecting others, protecting people from harm, etc., but not at the expense of legislating the specific beliefs of Christianity in relation to Jesus, the prophets, and so forth, because the Founders understood the consequences of theocratic rule.

Sadly, under trolling policies, I can only say that I agree 100% with what you said. I would like to respond because of some errors in your line of thinking.

You can write to me at my Nation, I suppose, for debate on The Wall of Separation of Church and State.

You can write to me at my Nation, I suppose, for debate on The Wall of Separation of Church and State.

I thought you meant that was your name for a second. Oops.

(majority version) I hereby perform research to confirm as True Fact through the evolutionary chain starting with the Common Ancestor of all Natural Organisms, such that the following has a probability of occuring:

(Christian version) I pray to Almighty God, the Creator and Preserver of the universe, that His goodness might be made manifest to us miserable sinners by the following:


...a Christian please come and pick up where I left off.

If you wish to debate, present your arguments in a clear manor, but be sure they are your arguments and beliefs. Expressing your beliefs in a clear, consise, and civilized manor will not get you banned. Expressing someone else's beliefs will get you banned.

Just start over.

Where are these Clear and Civilized Manors, and by what manner may I reach them?

Where are these Clear and Civilized Manors, and by what manner may I reach them?

I hate proper spelling. :(

(I knew that didn't look right...)

Where are these Clear and Civilized Manors, and by what manner may I reach them?

I am sorry for my rudeness. I love the Forum, and it seems that now there is agreement, which is good in a way. In a jury, you need a unanimous verdict after all.

I hate proper spelling. :(

(I knew that didn't look right...)


All propriety aside, what about correct spelling?

All propriety aside, what about correct spelling?

I hate correct spelling as well.

If a word looks remotely odd to me, I must never use it or find out how to spell it.

The separation of Church and State should be held as sacred as the Christians hold Jesus to be.

By that, I mean to say that the two should be so separate, that the curvature of the Earth, will not allow them to be seen over the horizon line.

The Law, and the Constitution are designed to be equal to all who are beholden to it.
This means that God is no less important that Allah, and no law should be passed that benefits one, and not the other.
Further, no law should be passed that greatly benefits a particular groups point of view, specifically abortion.

On the converse,
No law should be passed that inhibits such an institution, unless that institution is breaking the law, or infringing on rights of others.

In other words, Jesus should keep his greasy hands off the Judicial Branch, the Legislative Branch, and any white colored houses in the D.C area.

In other words, Jesus should keep his greasy hands off the Judicial Branch, the Legislative Branch, and any white colored houses in the D.C area.

I agree completely. :(

The seperation of church and states allows society to be run objectively and not with one group oppressing another group.

Without it, there will be strife, we need separation. What is moral for one group might not necessarily be moral for another.

:( :(

I agree completely. :(

The seperation of church and states allows society to be run objectively and not with one group oppressing another group.

Without it, there will be strife, we need separation. What is moral for one group might not necessarily be moral for another.

:( :(


Indeed.

BUT, on the other hand, I dont want any laws passed that give organized religions any unfair disadvantages either.

Indeed.

BUT, on the other hand, I dont want any laws passed that give organized religions any unfair disadvantages either.

I agree, but remember that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. So nothing religious can be in the public square. :(

I agree, but remember that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. So nothing religious can be in the public square. :(

But there is a freedom of expression. Surely religious expression falls under that category.

But there is a freedom of expression. Surely religious expression falls under that category.


Yes, but Goverment buildings arent allowed religious expression.

Yes, but Goverment buildings arent allowed religious expression.

Of course. I don't believe that I was arguing for plastering copies of the 10 commandments all over US courthouses. I was arguing that freedom of religious expression falls withing the freedom of expression proper. Something that CaT seems to disagree with.

But there is a freedom of expression. Surely religious expression falls under that category.
I tried that 'freedom of expression' thing after I spray painted "You suck" on the back of an H2, no one bought that either...





(no, I didn't really do that nor would I)

Of course. I don't believe that I was arguing for plastering copies of the 10 commandments all over US courthouses. I was arguing that freedom of religious expression falls withing the freedom of expression proper. Something that CaT seems to disagree with.

Before the First Amendment evolved to mean the complete separation of church and state, there were two clauses the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. However, under modern interpretations, the Free Exercise Clause would be redundant, because there should be no separate permission to celebrate religion separation from general expression.

Remember what's at the heart of liberty as Justice O'Connor told us all.

The Ten Commandments cannot be premitted, separation of church and state. It would oppress atheists.

Before the First Amendment evolved to mean the complete separation of church and state, there were two clauses the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. However, under modern interpretations, the Free Exercise Clause would be redundant, because there should be no separate permission to celebrate religion separation from general expression.

Remember what's at the heart of liberty as Justice O'Connor told us all.

But if that is true, why is religious expression any different from any other expression? And why should it be removed from public eye while Television (for example) should not?

Before the First Amendment evolved to mean the complete separation of church and state, there were two clauses the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. However, under modern interpretations, the Free Exercise Clause would be redundant, because there should be no separate permission to celebrate religion separation from general expression.

Remember what's at the heart of liberty as Justice O'Connor told us all.

The Ten Commandments cannot be premitted, separation of church and state. It would oppress atheists.
And the muslims, the hindus, the zorostrians, the wiccans, the buddhists, the...

And the muslims, the hindus, the zorostrians, the wiccans, the buddhists, the...

Actually, I think the 10 Commandments is in the Koran.

But everything else on there is good.

Of course. I don't believe that I was arguing for plastering copies of the 10 commandments all over US courthouses. I was arguing that freedom of religious expression falls withing the freedom of expression proper. Something that CaT seems to disagree with.


This is why Phelps is allowed to parade around insinuating that Gays are killing our soldiers and other such moronicy.
However, in order to limit his freedom, we have pased laws that say he has to stay a respectable distance from the flace where the funeral is taking place.

This, I feel, is a fair trade.

The Separation between Church and state truly means that there shall be no state religion. All faiths may be worshipped, and the Government can't play favorites (Even though it does).


But when people talk about road signs with God mentioned on them, and are insulted, I laugh. Heres why:


You have a right to personal expression. If you are a Neo-Nazis/Ku Klux Klan/whatever, you have the right to parade down a minority neighborhood and preach your message of hate. I like this. It says that the government isn't limiting our ability to PEACEFULLY Assemble either. When violence becomes a part of it, that changes, but if its done peacefully, you can say pretty much whatever you want whereever you want (Unless its a private building, then the owner has the right to throw you out).

The point of this being, those road signs I saw mentioned elsewhere, can be ignored. I do. So can you. If you say they should be taken down, you're infringing on someone else's right to see that message. You can merely look the other way, or pretend it doesn't exist. I sure as hell do.


Ok, rant over. :D

The Separation between Church and state truly means that there shall be no state religion. All faiths may be worshipped, and the Government can't play favorites (Even though it does).


But when people talk about road signs with God mentioned on them, and are insulted, I laugh. Heres why:


You have a right to personal expression. If you are a Neo-Nazis/Ku Klux Klan/whatever, you have the right to parade down a minority neighborhood and preach your message of hate. I like this. It says that the government isn't limiting our ability to PEACEFULLY Assemble either. When violence becomes a part of it, that changes, but if its done peacefully, you can say pretty much whatever you want whereever you want (Unless its a private building, then the owner has the right to throw you out).

The point of this being, those road signs I saw mentioned elsewhere, can be ignored. I do. So can you. If you say they should be taken down, you're infringing on someone else's right to see that message. You can merely look the other way, or pretend it doesn't exist. I sure as hell do.


Ok, rant over. :D

As long as it's not my government putting up those signs, and as long as my tax dollars aren't paying for them, I agree.

As long as it's not my government putting up those signs, and as long as my tax dollars aren't paying for them, I agree.

Oh, I suppose we could always make it voluntary.
Let's call it 'tithing'.

Of course, those who are not enrolled as voluntary 'tithers' will somehow fail to obtain permits for everything - including licenses to shop at the mall. Or have a bank-account. Or draw wages.

End of spurious example.

Back to reality: you seem to assume ( constantly ) that your private judgements trump the explicit will of the people as revealed ( faulty or other ) by elections.

Back to reality: you seem to assume ( constantly ) that your private judgements trump the explicit will of the people as revealed ( faulty or other ) by elections.
No, I simply don't believe majority rules. :D

Though I guess it's true that I think my private judgments trump "the will of the people" on such matters, because I believe "the will of the people" is totally and utterly irrelevant. Anything trumps "the will of the people" on topics like this one. Dead possums, for instance. Or disco. You get the idea.

Government does things requiring guns. In general, we have found there are certain people that must be kept away from guns. Many of those people are religious zealots. I like it when the religious zealots or on the streets of the promenade trying to convert the other religous zealots on the promenade. I don't like it when the religous zealot runs for office.

Besides, Religioun does fine without any government backing.

to this, i have only my opinion.
i am fairly certain it could trigger a flame war, but i find those funny, so:

i think that the seperation of church and state has not gone far enough. religious groups should not be allowed to form rallies that are ONLY intended to be political. there should be no commercials on TV for the week before an election (lest someone vote for Dr. Pepper for president). phones from churches should not be able to dial phones in government buildings, excepting emergency services. members of the church should have to swear of oath of athiesm before intering public office. you should not be able to SEE a church or religious symbol from a government officce.

this may be extreme, and it may infringe on constitutional rights, but it infringes on the same ones that several vocal religious leaders already want to infringe upon, so it must be okay...

i say all this because there are two alternatives to the separation of church and state. the elimination of the church by the state (see: communism, and the terrible sufferings of people under communist regiemes), and the domination of the state by the church (see: the dark ages, the middle east, america [early stages])

now before you TOTALLY try and kill me, i also believe this about any other cause that has over a quarter of a million dollars. all of it. even environmentalists. politicians should make policy based ONLY on what will be best for the nation.

i also do not kid myself that any of this will EVER happen.

now, where's i put that asbestos lined suit...

oh, PS-
researchers recently discovered that when two opposing partisans are shown the same news article, both will decide it favors their opponent.
food for thought!

and let the flame spew!

and let the flame spew!
Didn't know if you'd ran across this yet .... :
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11440323&postcount=231

Carrion, then. :)

to this, i have only my opinion.
i am fairly certain it could trigger a flame war, but i find those funny, so:

i think that the seperation of church and state has not gone far enough. religious groups should not be allowed to form rallies that are ONLY intended to be political. there should be no commercials on TV for the week before an election (lest someone vote for Dr. Pepper for president). phones from churches should not be able to dial phones in government buildings, excepting emergency services. members of the church should have to swear of oath of athiesm before intering public office. you should not be able to SEE a church or religious symbol from a government officce.

this may be extreme, and it may infringe on constitutional rights, but it infringes on the same ones that several vocal religious leaders already want to infringe upon, so it must be okay...

i say all this because there are two alternatives to the separation of church and state. the elimination of the church by the state (see: communism, and the terrible sufferings of people under communist regiemes), and the domination of the state by the church (see: the dark ages, the middle east, america [early stages])

now before you TOTALLY try and kill me, i also believe this about any other cause that has over a quarter of a million dollars. all of it. even environmentalists. politicians should make policy based ONLY on what will be best for the nation.

i also do not kid myself that any of this will EVER happen.

now, where's i put that asbestos lined suit...

oh, PS-
researchers recently discovered that when two opposing partisans are shown the same news article, both will decide it favors their opponent.
food for thought!


It's reallllly tough to keep a special interest group out of politics. Still we should try. We should require all politicians to maintain websites that show in real time where their campaign donations are coming from. We should be able to quickly look up each donor. Business's shoudl develop reputations as responsible campagin donors, and those that try to sneak money to someone should be held accountable in the court of public opinion.

i don't mind my politicians being bought, I just want to know who owns them when I vote

thank you for your support, hard to pronounce and spell disconawthapthablaarg person.

but in your plan, you forgot about the greatest tool politicians possess.

lying.

thank you and good night.

thank you for your support, hard to pronounce and spell disconawthapthablaarg person.

but in your plan, you forgot about the greatest tool politicians possess.

lying.

thank you and good night.

Often just making politicans say somethign on the record on a subject helps get through their lies.

-Disco U likes Copyright Reform