Better off now than 8 years ago? - Page 5

jazzguru is the old artman with a lobotomy and some tights.

Nope, nothing to hide, here.

It was already a lose-lose situation for me this past election. I didn't vote for either major party candidate.

I understand that I'm a Republican and damn tired of "folk" that call themselves "libertarian" and "constitutionalists" after we fucked the football and elected a complete disaster, not once but twice. And I'm a fucking RINO according to most...but at least not too chickenshit to own up to what a piss poor job we did when we got the reins.

Piss on your "constitution" party. Babies and cowards always run from a mess they made and your party platform is a frigging joke. You aren't conservatives as much as religious zealots.


I'd vote for "constitutionalists" about as soon as I'd vote for Sharia law. Which given the CP's position about women in the military is probably closer to moslem fundies than mainstream Americans anyway.

Oh and nice of your party to call gays "sexual offenders".

Hello vinea, nice to meet you, too.

Bitter, much?

Wow, just wow.

Ditto that.

That's what she said. But seriously, wowsers.

I know, it's great!

Of course the people that want to condemn the beliefs of those who are transparent would never follow such an example themselves by laying the foundations of their beliefs out there. They prefer to sit back and take potshots.

Bitter? No.

Annoyed by "Constitutionalists"? A tad.

I believe in beer, boobies and backrubs. Not in any particular order and preferablly all at the same time.

On a more serious note, is the transparancy of the Taliban really a mitigating factor? They sure lay out the foundations of their beliefs for all to see.

Arguably Obama is also pretty transparent in his objectives. Or at least Rush, Sean, and company are tirelessly playing the same audio clips over and over again in order to make it so.

You're equating the Constitution Party with the Taliban? Nice.

So you believe in vice and that women exist not as equals but as sex objects and to subjugate?

Sorry I was just doing the same thing. Wow, just wow.

I would argue that Obama is not at all transparent in his objectives. Like most things Democratic, it is the personal narrative and the intent that must bring that overrides any need to look into foundations of his beliefs. To the Democratic Party they are one in the same. So for example even though Obama clearly belonged to a church with a hateful preacher, we don't need to worry about that. His policies consist of being a singularly unique individual and thus we must elect him to see how he would govern as such. He has already broken dozens of promises. It is all excused because of who he is instead of what he does.

Yes, beer and women are not equal. Sometimes beer is better. Sometimes beer is skunky. So like in all things in life..."it depends".

I would equate one government based on religion pretty much with another, yes. That I am a Christian doesn't enter the equation any more than for a moderate Muslim. Probably okay when it's YOUR religion. Not always so hot when it is someone else's. For a fundamentalist muslim, I'm sure that Sharia law seems quite reasonable. Likewise for a fundamentalist christian, I'm sure that law based on the Bible seems quite reasonable.

For the Hindu, Buddist or atheist probably not so much. Banning women from the military (except maybe as nurses) and calling gays sexual offenders is simply differs in degree from Sharia and probably once in power folks that believe in imposing their religious beliefs on others will become just as extreme.

Religious fundamentalists don't really believe in live and let live. That's why they are religious fundamentalists.

The Constitution Party does not advocate the establishment of a theocracy. It advocates returning the government to its Constitutional roots.

Therefore, your comparison is inaccurate.

Sounds pretty theocratic to me!

Let's include the rest of that sentence and put it in context, shall we?

Constitution Party Platform

(emphasis added)

I didn't see any calls for the abolishment of the U.S. Constitution and establishment of a theocracy, did you?

That the U.S. Constitution and other documents (The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation) upon which this country was founded are rooted in Biblical (Judeo-Christian) principles is obvious. The Constitution Party is reaffirming this fact and calling for a return to Constitutional government.

The above says enough about why they aren't a viable alternative.

Not the abolishment of the Consitution but the twisting of it to make it support a theocracy.

The fundamental aspect of the Consitution (wrt to religion) is the prevention of a state religion, not the support for one. The foundations of federal law are specifically civil and not biblical for the very reason that Christians don't always agree what is and isn't biblical law.

By stating that the bible is the source of law is the same as saying that the koran is the source of law.

Did you even read the link to wikipedia you posted?

"Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws."

"The term "Theonomy" has been used to describe various views which see the God revealed in the Bible as the sole source of human ethics."

Stating that God is the soverign source of law, liberty, and government is establishing a theocracy.


That the founders were Christian is obvious. However, those documents are not the Constitution and the Constituion is opposed to establishing the US as a Christian nation and makes nary a mention of God. On purpose.

In fact, you can make the case that it is not based on Christian principles but Enlightenment ones.

In 1797 in the "Treaty of Peace and Freindship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subject of Tripoli, or Barbary" Article 11 states:

"As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

I suppose that by 1797 congress had already forgotten what our founding principles were when voting for the treaty with that statement in it? That John Adams had a bout of senility when that passed his desk?

I believe this adequately conveys the crux of your argument (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I have to disagree with that statement. If you believe The Declaration of Independence to be one of our founding documents (I certainly do), then how can you reconcile that statement with the following excerpt?


(emphasis added)

If you do not believe The Declaration of Independence to be one of our founding documents, that is a different argument entirely.

And I agree with you, the government was not founded on any religion, nor was it intended to be. Indeed, there was no mention of Christianity specifically in the Declaration.

However, the U.S. Government was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (as are many religions and religious denominations the world over). Acknowledging that they share a common foundation is not tantamount to declaring the U.S. Government to be a theocracy. Calling for a return of the government to those core principles--those Constitutional bounds--would not create a theocracy any more than it would create a monarchy.

Leaders in a theocratic government are also leaders of the official state religion (see Iran). The Constitution Party is not advocating anything close to that.

Not quite. It is the emphasis made about God on the platform. Do you believe that the majority of Democrats (much less Republicans) are not Christian?


Compare the relatively small mention made to God in the Declaration and the lack of mention in the Constitution with the emphasis on the Bible and Christianity made on the "Constitutionalist" platform.


And true "constitutionalists" might take the hint.


Again, you can argue that the US government was founded on Enlightenment principles and not Judeo-Christian ones. Or the Constitution of the United States might have read a lot more like the 1812 Constitution of Spain:

"The Roman Catholic religion, the only true one, is, and always shall be, that of the Spanish nation. The government protects it by wise and just laws, and prohibits the exercise of any other whatever."


Except that the Constitutional bounds are not based on the bible as asserted repeatedly by the Constitutionalist creed.

They assume that either the American public is ignorant of the Constitution or the Bible or both.

Find for me the biblical foundation for religious freedom and tolerance (or for that matter democracy). I'll give you one for free:

Micah 4:3: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hat spoken it. For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever." (KJV)

It's kinda an iffy one in a vague sort of way. Now find another. Good luck.

On the other hand religious exclusivity is a common theme in the Bible.

Deuteronomy 7:3-4 "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly."

Psalms 79:6: "Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."

Deuteronomy 12:2-3 "Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place."

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 "If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

Exodus 22:20 "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

Exodus 34:11 "...behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."

Thus is the biblical foundation for religious tolerance in the Old Testament.

On with the New Testament

Corinthians 10:20-21 - "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

2 Corinthians 6:14 - "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

Galatians 1:9 - "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Gentiles worship devils (and therefore Satan), don't hang with them and preachers of other gospels are accursed.

Gotcha. Thus is the biblical foundation for religious tolerance in the New Testament.

Now lets take a close look at what the platform says:


That seems pretty danged obvious to me. What, pray tell, is the original intent?

Take a look at these two interesting positions:


and the comment that Gays are sexual offenders:


Hey look...a backdoor way (heh) of excluding gays from the government without needing a relligious test. Especially since some Christians are so lax as to ordain gays for clergy.


Nice, and given our "Biblical" foundations we can clearly determine what is "good behavior". So here's a "constitutional" method of getting rid of judges we don't like.


We don;t like porn so we think that the First Amendment is really a way to squelch stuff we don't like...in a Constitutional manner of course.

Say what?

Oh , while we believe in capitalism and deregulation, it doesn't apply to pictures of nekkid women.

Given that there's no Biblical foundation for religious freedom/tolerance, the heavy emphasis of "returning" the Constitution to that Biblical foundation and the interesting ways the platform is already designed to exclude folks of "questionable" moral values in government I'm going to call BS that this isn't a platform for theocracy.


Yet.

The writings of the founding fathers on freedom of religion can easily be argued it applies only within the context of Christian sects. The primary motivation was to prevent other versions of Christianity be able to impose its specific dogma on everyone else and much of Jefferson's (and others) writings address that and the (christian) clergy in particular.

The same selective reading that makes you believe that the US Constitution based on biblical law would in due time conclude that really the founders weren't talking about protecting the religious rights of atheists, heretics (hindus, buddhists, pagans, etc), gays, porn surfers, baby killers (aka pro-choice folks) etc. whom are immoral under the Biblical foundations of law and should be excluded from the government based on that immorality alone (but hey, some SAY they are Christians so there's really no religious test since we exclude them too...nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more).

Vinea, I disagree.

Me too. And I agree with your sentiment on politics. I agree with Dems on a lot, and conservatives on a lot. Seriously. But I probably disagree with both...on more. I'm probably Libertarian on social issues, but liberal on spending for public things (ie research, parks and forests, infrastructure etc) that benefit us all, not just a minority or interest group (ie hippie crap, and corporate welfare alike.) How about we start a Common Sense party, right here! I mean we'll listen to anyone that has a common sense idea. Heck speaking of trumpets I have heard some pretty good common sense from Nick even! Hey, who knows, maybe I even make sense sometimes. Who's with me!

The Common Sense Party!

That'd actually be kinda cool, since Thomas Paine's Common Sense is such an important and influential work in our nation's history.

I thought Obama was going to curb outsourcing and bring jobs back home.

Ballmer Says Tax Would Move Microsoft Jobs Offshore

I'd be with you both but you're woodwinds which means it would suck.

And on a self-deprecating note... how many trumpet players does it take to screw in a light bulb?


12... one to do it and 11 to stand around and say they could do it better.