US of A Presidential Elections 2012

SpitfireMK461

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
2,682
Location
Northern Virginia
Car(s)
2013 Mini Cooper S
There is a big difference between the founders being religious and the founding being religious. The former is absolutely true, the latter is not, as any study of the Constitution will show.
 

HellPhish

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
23
Location
MD,USA
Car(s)
1989 LSx swapped Camaro RS
im going to ignore any source like think progress even though i really dont like bachmann.

dont like perry too much either but i would vote for him long before some idiot like romney or huntsman and definitely before i ever vote for obama. obama needs to go, badly.

the biggest issue is perry is all talk and more akin to McCain than to someone like Coolidge

hes an awesome 2A supporter and the best way to get rid of NFA and other idiotic laws but his record on other stuff just says more.
 

HellPhish

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
23
Location
MD,USA
Car(s)
1989 LSx swapped Camaro RS
There is a big difference between the founders being religious and the founding being religious. The former is absolutely true, the latter is not, as any study of the Constitution will show.
the argument has been that the country was founded on strictly secular ideas, which is false and that the founders were not religious which is largely also false. youre making an argument that doesnt exist in the mainstream. the country was founded on jewish/christian morals/deals in a way that wouldnt force others to practice.

the US Constitution was simply the govt layout (specifically the declaration that the govt could only do what was laid out in the document) and an enumeration of a few fundamental rights. the DoI was the document that said "this is who we are and why we are going to be our own country."
 

SpitfireMK461

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
2,682
Location
Northern Virginia
Car(s)
2013 Mini Cooper S
An argument being in the mainstream is not what I care about. I care about what history actually says.

It is a fact that the founders were religious and that most were Christian (though it is worth noting that many of the big name founders are more accurately described as having been deists). And while it is not false to say the ideals the nation were founded on are the same shared by the Jewish and Christian faiths, it is a very bold claim to say the nation were directly founded upon religious ideals. The founders were enlightenment idealists, which largely supported the separation of church and state. Few argued against religion, but many were of the opinion that religion did not have a place in the founding and workings of government. To draw a metaphor, I believe we should help the poor, and while that is an ideal straight from the Bible, a religious foundation is not why I believe in that ideal.

The Constitutional is not simply a government layout. It is an entire treatise of the enlightenment ideals that influenced government. While religion was important to all the writers of that document, the fact that God is not mentioned in the Constitution shows that the founders did not believe in religion having a place in the governing of a nation. The history of the writing of the document shows us just as much. The Declaration of Independence does invoke God, but it is in no way a legal document, and was mostly an emotional document use to raise revolutionary sentiments among the populace.
 

HellPhish

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
23
Location
MD,USA
Car(s)
1989 LSx swapped Camaro RS
An argument being in the mainstream is not what I care about. I care about what history actually says.

It is a fact that the founders were religious and that most were Christian (though it is worth noting that many of the big name founders are more accurately described as having been deists). And while it is not false to say the ideals the nation were founded on are the same shared by the Jewish and Christian faiths, it is a very bold claim to say the nation were directly founded upon religious ideals. The founders were enlightenment idealists, which largely supported the separation of church and state. Few argued against religion, but many were of the opinion that religion did not have a place in the founding and workings of government. To draw a metaphor, I believe we should help the poor, and while that is an ideal straight from the Bible, a religious foundation is not why I believe in that ideal.
the pulpit had a huge part in the founding of the country. they didnt go through the bible and say "were going to use this, this, and that." that is not what im ssaying. what i am and was saying is that their religious beliefs whether jewish, christain, or deist, had a very large influence on the founding and what followed.the idea being they based the founding off what they practiced in their own lives. they made it known in the DoI but in a way that didnt smell of the church of england.

The Constitutional is not simply a government layout. It is an entire treatise of the enlightenment ideals that influenced government. While religion was important to all the writers of that document, the fact that God is not mentioned in the Constitution shows that the founders did not believe in religion having a place in the governing of a nation. The history of the writing of the document shows us just as much. The Declaration of Independence does invoke God, but it is in no way a legal document, and was mostly an emotional document use to raise revolutionary sentiments among the populace.
i oversimplified because the Constitution is, in simple terms, the blue print. it does not provide the entire reasoning like the federalist/anti-federalist papers, DeToquville's Democracy in America, or Locke's Second Treatsie of Govt.

it was a rightfully NEUTRAL document when concerning religion however, freedom of religion is not freedom from. its an unambiguous rule that Govt cannot pass a law that directly supports or establishes a religion and that it cannot limit the practice of religion. it didnt say "oh, you cant have a steel cross on ground zero" or "youre not allowed to have a religious piece in a govt building." though that bit is a whole other thread.
i figured doing the responses in bold would be easier to follow. if not, sorry..:p
i think we have a similar idea of what they were trying to do and how. i do not believe they were setting up a jewish/christian country, they were setting up a country that was heavily inspired/influenced by the teachings of those religions.

you see, the differences can be subtle as, i too believe we should help the poor but i believe it should be my choice of who i help and how (charity not govt).
 

WillDAQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
2,725
Location
Ukania
Thank god for not having a constitution, makes arguing about it far more difficult.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
whats interesting is, that same board added more African Americans to the curriculum that have been involved in various parts of US history from the Revolution til now. with an emphasis on the Revolutionary era. David Barton was part of it and he is the largest private holder of revolution era documents in the US/world. for some reason, Stewart couldnt get how our founding had routes in Christianity (for example, roughly half the DoI signers had seminary degrees).

what you have to understand is that a lot of "experts" arent.

did you know that Jefferson, the guy who was supposedly a rabid freedom from religion advocate, actually started a weekly church service at the Capital?
As with anything else, there was some good, and some bad. Generally speaking, I'd like there to be NO political bias in school books, the Texas School board simply tried to get their own bias into them. So I won't condone it.

I didn't know Jeffersen started a weekly church service at the Capital. But I could have guessed. The thing is, it doesn't really make any difference to the fact that they were very clear that the government was to be free of religion. The moment you start legislating religion, you are restricting someone's freedom. Gay marriage is an excellent example. The only reason any part of the US government can still deny basic rights to LBG couples and singles is politics, a supreme court not ready to do what's right.

Defence of Marriage Act was nothing more than legislative gay bashing. And it makes no sense from a constitutional perspective. It's one of those laws that really underscores the idea of making government small enough that it'll fit into the bed room.

While some things, like for instance the opposition to abortion at least is a question of wanting to protect human life, opposition to gay marriage is not. It just restricts the freedom of LBG couples. It makes their lives more difficult. It's something that has no impact on anyone else than those who get married. Other than that, they'll just be another married couple.

the argument has been that the country was founded on strictly secular ideas, which is false and that the founders were not religious which is largely also false. youre making an argument that doesnt exist in the mainstream. the country was founded on jewish/christian morals/deals in a way that wouldnt force others to practice.

the US Constitution was simply the govt layout (specifically the declaration that the govt could only do what was laid out in the document) and an enumeration of a few fundamental rights. the DoI was the document that said "this is who we are and why we are going to be our own country."
It wasn't founded on secular ideas. But humanist and liberalist ideas like freedom of speech and freedom of worship was included in the first ammendment. I'm an ateist, but I wouldn't ban religion. It's part of the same thinking. Actually, I think there's a good argument to be more leniant towards school prayer. I don't think schools should organize it. But if pupils want to pray, they should be alloved to. But that's just me.

As for the Decleration of Independence, it was a very important framework for what this new federation of states were to be. However, it was not enacted into law. The constitution was.

Edit: Other than that, there are times when I wonder if you put all other moral considerations aside as long as the constitution mentions it. It's like a lot of Americans will abandon a discussion of principle if the constitution has made the question clear, or supposedly clear. Where's discussion of what's right and wrong? Just a thought.
 
Last edited:

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,696
Location
Michigan USA
i figured doing the responses in bold would be easier to follow. if not, sorry..:p
i think we have a similar idea of what they were trying to do and how. i do not believe they were setting up a jewish/christian country, they were setting up a country that was heavily inspired/influenced by the teachings of those religions.

you see, the differences can be subtle as, i too believe we should help the poor but i believe it should be my choice of who i help and how (charity not govt).

You need to learn how to use the multi-quote and stop putting your response in the quotes.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Oh, in that case, is it your neighbours choice wether or not you should have an Army?
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
im going to ignore any source like think progress even though i really dont like bachmann.
Why? Not believing or reading something because of the source just makes you look like you can't think for yourself. I take everything from Fox News with a huge grain of salt, but I'm still able to glean information from the bullshit they spew.

obama needs to go, badly.
Why.
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
Double post ahoy!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8734193/John-Boehner-tells-Barack-Obama-to-delay-Congress-jobs-speech.html

The bold move to make a speech about jobs before a rare joint session of Congress took Republicans by surprise and prompted an unprecedented rebuff from John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

White House aides said they had cleared the time of the speech next Wednesday with Mr Boehner but the Speaker's office said he was not consulted. Mr Boehner said there was not enough time to conduct a security sweep of the chamber and requested Mr Obama consider Thursday instead.

The argument, conducted in an exchange of public letters, marked a new low in relations between the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill following the acrimonious negotiations over raising the federal debt ceiling.

Mr Obama's planned speech appears essentially to be an attempt to relaunch Mr Obama's presidency in an address to Congress while at the same time overshadowing the Republicans who want to replace him in the Oval Office.

It was unclear last night how the impasse would be broken. Mr Obama could agree to move the speech to Thursday or instead stick to Wednesday and deliver it from the White House or some other venue.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
It's about time that Boehner grows the fuck up.
You phrase it so elegantly.

Yawwwwwn. Can he actually do anything other than bitch?
He can risk credit ratings, US unity while bombing another country, he can talk and talk and talk about how the GOP will blast the dems. And he can eat up to ten waffles without getting a tummy ache.

That's his problem. He needs to just bully though his things. Then he'd be a leader.
 

Cobol74

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
17,508
Location
The banana republic of Ukania
Car(s)
Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20
Obama seems to be a bit of a wimp to be honest. There were lots of (American) people in FL when I was over there who hated Obama, when they asked me what I thought of him I sort of gave a jury's out verdict. He is not a bad man and obviously he has a lovely family but to be the US president you need more, he needs to man up (He made a complete dogs breakfast of health care reform for instance coming up with what would a appear to be the least effective option at the most expensive price) but I fear it is too late.

The only way he will be re-elected is if the GOP select a complete and utter nutter as their candidate, even then if the nutter says 'God' often enough he may well win. :smile:

I find it odd we have an established church and the mention of religion is completely taboo in Ukanian Politics, the US is proud of having all faiths and no established church but actually if you are not sufficiently christian you will not be taken seriously and you have to invoke your faith alot.
 
Last edited:

WillDAQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
2,725
Location
Ukania
Needs a Bartlett moment, no more Uncle Fluffy, time to show some balls!

And while he's at it, Bartlett demonstrated exactly how to deal with the Christian right.

 
Last edited:

Jay

the fool on the hill
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,280
Location
Aurora, IL
The day you and others stop using scripted TV shows to drive home a point is the day I will start taking you seriously, politically. Have an original thought. :roll:

obama needs to go, badly.
That's his problem. He needs to just bully though his things. Then he'd be a leader.
That is why. He is an organizer, not a leader. If you do not understand this, then you are not the type to be a leader, most likely a follower. And there is nothing wrong with that, everyone has a role in life. I do have a problem when an organizer is the head of 330 million people.
 

WillDAQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
2,725
Location
Ukania
The day you and others stop using scripted TV shows to drive home a point is the day I will start taking you seriously, politically. Have an original thought. :roll:
Well obviously it is a scripted TV show, scripted by people who went on to become speech writing staff for... Obama, as it happens, back in the election campaign when he gave the impression of actually having some backbone.

Now obviously once in office politicians tend to work within constraints of expediency which fictional characters don't, but if sticking rigidly to those constraints is going to lose you an election then what's the point.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
The day you and others stop using scripted TV shows to drive home a point is the day I will start taking you seriously, politically. Have an original thought. :roll:
Would it be prefrable if we quoted Shakespear, John Locke, Harold MacMillan, Plato or Ibsen? :p

That is why. He is an organizer, not a leader. If you do not understand this, then you are not the type to be a leader, most likely a follower. And there is nothing wrong with that, everyone has a role in life. I do have a problem when an organizer is the head of 330 million people.
He's a good leader. Or to be precise, he's got the potential to be one. He's just scared of handeling some of the more important, but contentious issues. He got burned by health care. I think that scared him. I think he'll try to do a lot more if he's elected to a second term.
 
Top