bobdroege7
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,409
Then, of course you did what you should do, and rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
amirite?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Abortion bill pass in Kentucky
- Thread starter Aepervius
- Start date
Then, of course you did what you should do, and rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
amirite?
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,150
Alas Trumpettes and rightists in general don't care much about inconvenient facts.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,150
A matter that's been discussed a lot here in Ireland recently and is a topic of much interest at the current Citizen's Assembly.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 16,491
Really? OK, well let me try that. I'll pull some money out of the cash drawer here at the store...
[IMGW=600]https://www.dropbox.com/s/uq16nl738a31t2h/2017-01-09%2011.48.38.jpg?dl=1[/IMGW]
huh...nothing much there..maybe the back?
[IMGW=600]https://www.dropbox.com/s/yncm8udlv4repfs/2017-01-09%2011.50.44.jpg?dl=1[/IMGW]
Nope. Nothing about being founded on Christian principles there!
That's the symptom of posting from a tablet and having to squint.
Thought maybe Physicists had discovered/created a new particle in the particleular pantheon!!!!!
I accept that in some cases, but prefer just the woman with the doctor only giving real, unfiltered medical advice to her.
If the male/mate is trying to prevent her, a swift kick in the testes is my immediate go to option. And I do love children....and thus only want them born to one or more loving parents who have the ability to care for them and nurture them properly.
So am I!
You would think, that a general improvement in public health, better education, not constantly making an effort to keep the poor as poor as possible would be a priority for any decent person?
But when you look at the US as an outsider (I have lived in the US too), it honestly looks like it is a well defined political agenda, to keep as many people as possible both dumb and poor.
Not so long ago the US was in the forefront of developed nations with regards to science, education, health, innovation and such.
The rest of the world basically adored the US.
And then they lost it.
Somehow the people who would have a real benefit from real health and education reforms were convinced, that they should vote for the people least likely to do that.
And now they have elected an orange buffoon for president. The very type of person who has ********** up their lives, health and economy.
I really wonder why!
eeyore1954
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,811
Because viability is limited by current medical technology and has nothing to do with whether that unborn child has a right to live.
In my opinion it does.
20 weeks I am sure is a frame that picked that they hoped would pass.
You call it conning a woman I call it trying to save a life.
Last edited:
Probably. I see some other states are already at a 22 to 24 week cutoff.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
OK, so kindly show which Christian principles are enshrined in the Constitution, which is the highest law in the land. Be specific, now.
Sherkeu
Illuminator
I just read the recent news on this. Seems the only way to change the current constitutional ban to allow any exemption, other than the life of the mother, is by a popular referendum, the same way the ban was voted in. Is there not another way Ireland can decide human rights than the vote of the people?
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
"Now, you can present compelling and conclusive evidence that I don't know what I'm talking about as much as you wish but that won't change that I don't know what I'm talking about.
"Go Trump!"
Slight derail from this train wreck of a thread, but this is a personal pet peeve of mine. One, obviously, there is no Christian principle that says that slaves were worth only 3/5s of a free person. Two, not all blacks were slaves and not all whites were free. There were a number of free blacks that fought with some of the founders to end slavery, just as there were plenty of white people that were sold into slavery or indentured servitude. And three, you do realize that the 3/5s rule was a compromise that only applied to Congressional apportionment? The pro-slavery states would have been loved to count their slaves as full people. They would have been thrilled to count their slaves as five people each, since it would have massively increased their power in Congress and made it that much harder to end slavery. It was the anti-slavery founders that made the quite obvious point that you can't claim that slaves aren't people but property in one breath, then claim that for the purposes of Congressional power that slaves should count as full people with all the rights of people with the next breath.
/derail
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
I suppose you could argue that a Constitution that fails to mention specifically any certain religion to be the work of secular men but, you'd be wrong. While creating their ideas for a perfect Government, freedom of religion was by far one of the most important parts of the document. Creating a document that respects all forms of religion was the idea. Secularism would have had no mention of religion whatsoever. Even the date on the document hints to the founder's Christian principles, "In the Year of Our Lord"........
Pasted from: http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/06/did-america-have-a-christian-founding
"Even though Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill or Rights, the Founders of the American republic were influenced by Christian ideas in significant ways. For example:
Their faith taught them that humans were sinful. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary.” This conviction led them to avoid utopian experiments such as those later pursued during the French Revolution and to adopt a constitutional system characterized by separated powers, checks and balances, and federalism. Many Enlightenment thinkers in this era, by way of contrast, tended to favor a strong, centralized government run by experts.[24]
They firmly believed that God ordained moral standards, that legislation should be made in accordance with these standards, and that moral laws took precedence over human laws. This conviction manifests itself in their abstract reflections (e.g., James Wilson’s law lectures, parts of which read like St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica) and practical decisions (e.g., all but one Supreme Court Justice prior to John Marshall argued publicly that the Court could strike down an act of Congress if it violated natural law).[25]
Similarly, Christianity informed the Founders’ understanding of substantive concepts such as “liberty.” Barry Shain has identified eight different ways in which the word was used in the 18th century. Only one of these is related to the excessively individualistic way the term is often used today. Instead, the Founders were far more likely to see liberty as the freedom to do what is morally correct, as illustrated by United States Supreme Court Justice James Wilson’s marvelous dictum: “Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness.”[26]
America’s Founders believed that humans were created in the imago dei—the image of God. Part of what this means is that humans are reasonable beings. This led them to conclude that we the people (as opposed to the elite) can order our public lives together through politics rather than force. It also helped inform early (and later) American opposition to slavery.[27]"
Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
Interesting how you would happen to have a pre 1957 $5 bill handy from the cash drawer. A bill prior to the mandate requiring all US bills be printed with the motto "In God We Trust". Of course most US coins already had the motto "In God We Trust" prior to 1957 though.............Since 1832? or so?
I suppose you are trying to suggest our National motto is not "In God We Trust"........That is our National motto though. Feel free to check.
Chris B.
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I presume that in your abundant and exhaustive research you have noticed the year in which "In God We Trust" became our National Motto?
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
I wonder why that should matter? The year,that is. Isn't the important part that it is officially our National motto? You know, according to the SC it's not out of bounds,even though it's found in the Bible............
Chris B.
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
I wonder why that should matter? The year,that is. Isn't the important part that it is officially our National motto? You know, according to the SC it's not out of bounds,even though it's found in the Bible............
Chris B.
Seriously? Because if you use the motto to make a claim about on which principles the country was founded, then your argument would kind of fall flat when you find out the motto is about 180 years younger than the country...