'Evil,' 'Corrupt' and 'Brain-Dead'

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Oh, and I have to ask that one dude up there that said that God was the head of the Justice System:  What the !@#$ is the point of the seperation of church and state then?

320066[/snapback]

 

Do you really think you're going to get a satisfactory answer to that?

[Alaska Darin]

Why is the left so ashamed of being called liberal?

320083[/snapback]

Because liberals suck.

[Chilly]

Calling democrats "damn liberals" is the same as being called evil?  Pretty thin skinned.  If because I'm a republican some one calls me damn conservative.  My response?  "Why thank you."  Why is the left so ashamed of being called liberal?

320083[/snapback]

 

Its because of the connotations through the years that have developed because of generalizations.

 

When someone thinks "Conservative", they think patriotic, freedom loving, Christian, hard working blue collar, founding father-type.

 

When someone thinks liberal, the connotation is a hippie, drug using, lazy and loving welfare, communist-type.

 

Of course, neither actually fits correctly, but thats not the way they are used anymore.

 

As far as the question if its the same thing as being called evil, the implications are the same based upon the connotations of each in our society. President Bush in the debates this past election consistently labeled John Kerry a liberal because of these connotations. In fact, he called a lot of his policies "too liberal" based on the connotations up above.

 

The definition of liberal (Part 1, a & b which is most relevant to this discussion) from dictionary.com:

 

a.) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b.) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

 

What was he saying, that John Kerry is too free from bigotry? That he's too open to ideas for progress and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others? Obviously not, he was portraying him as the connotations I was posting above.

 

While thats not the same as calling someone "evil", it is still slanderous, just a lot less direct and out in the open. More effective tactic perhaps, but essentially the same thing.

[Alaska Darin]

Its because of the connotations through the years that have developed because of generalizations.

 

When someone thinks "Conservative", they think patriotic, freedom loving, Christian, hard working blue collar, founding father-type.

 

When someone thinks liberal, the connotation is a hippie, drug using, lazy and loving welfare, communist-type.

 

Of course, neither actually fits correctly, but thats not the way they are used anymore.

 

As far as the question if its the same thing as being called evil, the implications are the same based upon the connotations of each in our society.  President Bush in the debates this past election consistently labeled John Kerry a liberal because of these connotations.  In fact, he called a lot of his policies "too liberal" based on the connotations up above.

 

The definition of liberal (Part 1, a & b which is most relevant to this discussion) from dictionary.com:

 

a.) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b.) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

 

What was he saying, that John Kerry is too free from bigotry?  That he's too open to ideas for progress and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others?  Obviously not, he was portraying him as the connotations I was posting above.

 

While thats not the same as calling someone "evil", it is still slanderous, just a lot less direct and out in the open.  More effective tactic perhaps, but essentially the same thing.

320105[/snapback]

Liberal is certainly the wrong term, given that definition. But the phrase "idiot who honestly thinks that giving the government alot of money to spend frivolously for little gain, ignoring all of recorded history" takes way too long to say.

[Chilly]

Liberal is certainly the wrong term, given that definition.  But the phrase "idiot who honestly thinks that giving the government alot of money to spend frivolously for little gain, ignoring all of recorded history" takes way too long to say.

320124[/snapback]

 

Thats called democrat.

[jimshiz]

Oh, and I have to ask that one dude up there that said that God was the head of the Justice System:  What the !@#$ is the point of the seperation of church and state then?

320066[/snapback]

 

Here is a "satisfactory" answer:

 

The word "separation" appears NO where in the Constitution. If you are referring to the 1st Amendment, it says in part "Freedom OF religion", NOT "Freedom FROM religion".

 

The Declaration of Independence is also one of our "founding documents" and it makes it pretty clear why we thought human beings should not be treated the way the king was treating us:

 

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..."

[Campy]

The word "separation" appears NO where in the Constitution.

320216[/snapback]

Nor does the Constitution claim that Americans have a reasonable "right to privacy" or a "right to a fair trial." Are you also in favor of dismissing these tenents of freedom?

 

But while we're discussing the Constitution, Article VI does state that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Religious tests were commonly used in the colonies prior to the Revolution. If the founders wanted the "law of the land" to be rooted in Christianity, how could a reasonable person jusify that very unique clause?

 

And why would clergy of the day attack the Constitution for not seeking the protection of God and the endorsement of Christianity if, as you alledge, it does?

[Chilly]

Nor does the Constitution claim that Americans have a reasonable "right to privacy" or a "right to a fair trial."  Are you also in favor of dismissing these tenents of freedom?

 

But while we're discussing the Constitution, Article VI does state that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  Religious tests were commonly used in the colonies prior to the Revolution.  If the founders wanted the "law of the land" to be rooted in Christianity, how could a reasonable person jusify that very unique clause? 

 

And why would clergy of the day attack the Constitution for not seeking the protection of God and the endorsement of Christianity if, as you alledge, it does?

320229[/snapback]

 

Quoted for Truth.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Here is a "satisfactory" answer:

 

The word "separation" appears NO where in the Constitution.  If you are referring to the 1st Amendment, it says in part "Freedom OF religion", NOT "Freedom FROM religion".

 

The Declaration of Independence is also one of our "founding documents" and it makes it pretty clear why we thought human beings should not be treated the way the king was treating us:

 

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..."

320216[/snapback]

 

Not even a REMOTELY satisfactory answer. Maybe you should actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights before you go off misquoting it, as the First Amendment doesn't say "Freedom of Religion" either. What it says is:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

Now please, explain to me how a introducing for consideration in Congress a bill respecting the establishment of a religious basis as the ultimate foundation of the US Justice system doesn't violate the Constitutional prohibition against Congress making laws respecting the establishment of religion...

[jimshiz]

Nor does the Constitution claim that Americans have a reasonable "right to privacy" or a "right to a fair trial."  Are you also in favor of dismissing these tenents of freedom?

 

But while we're discussing the Constitution, Article VI does state that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  Religious tests were commonly used in the colonies prior to the Revolution.  If the founders wanted the "law of the land" to be rooted in Christianity, how could a reasonable person jusify that very unique clause? 

 

And why would clergy of the day attack the Constitution for not seeking the protection of God and the endorsement of Christianity if, as you alledge, it does?

320229[/snapback]

 

The 6th Amendment says "impartial jury"; I would hope that would imply "fair". But, as I said before, the Constitution does NOT enumerate the rights that "We The People" have; it enumerates the rights we allow our government to have.

 

I NEVER said "the God of Christianity" !!! I never promoted the use of "religious tests". I never said that the Constitution "endorses Christianity".

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The 6th Amendment says "impartial jury"; I would hope that would imply "fair".  But, as I said before, the Constitution does NOT enumerate the rights that "We The People" have; it enumerates the rights we allow our government to have.

 

I NEVER said "the God of Christianity" !!!  I never promoted the use of "religious tests".  I never said that the Constitution "endorses Christianity".

320239[/snapback]

 

Not the 6th Amendment, Article VI of the Constitution.

[Chilly]

Taken from http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm :

 

Church/State Myths

 

Myth:

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.

 

Response:

That is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

 

There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

 

Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas.

 

The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise. What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

There is nothing there about a "fair trial," but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.

 

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

 

The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

 

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

 

After you read that, I'd like to ask you your thoughts on it, and another question - If "God" is the head of our Judicial System, how do we make rulings if we don't know which god to follow?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Taken from http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm :

After you read that, I'd like to ask you your thoughts on it, and another question - If "God" is the head of our Judicial System, how do we make rulings if we don't know WHICH GOD TO FOLLOW?  Seriously.

320245[/snapback]

 

But you quoted an athiesm site, so that judgement isn't rooted in God, so it can't possibly be binding...

[Chilly]

But you quoted an athiesm site, so that judgement isn't rooted in God, so it can't possibly be binding... 

320248[/snapback]

 

I guess he isn't a liberal (by the true definition anyway )

[jimshiz]

Not even a REMOTELY satisfactory answer.  Maybe you should actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights before you go off misquoting it, as the First Amendment doesn't say "Freedom of Religion" either.  What it says is:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

Now please, explain to me how a introducing for consideration in Congress a bill respecting the establishment of a religious basis as the ultimate foundation of the US Justice system doesn't violate the Constitutional prohibition against Congress making laws respecting the establishment of religion... 

320238[/snapback]

 

What is the difference between "Freedom OF religion" and "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion]..."?

 

I did not say that "introducing for consideration in Congress a bill respecting the establishment of a religious basis as the ultimate foundation of the US Justice system" didn't violate the Constitution. I just asked someone why Delay was an "idiot".

[Campy]

The 6th Amendment says "impartial jury"; I would hope that would imply "fair".  But, as I said before, the Constitution does NOT enumerate the rights that "We The People" have; it enumerates the rights we allow our government to have.

 

I NEVER said "the God of Christianity" !!!  I never promoted the use of "religious tests".  I never said that the Constitution "endorses Christianity".

320239[/snapback]

The 6th Ammendment "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." I would think it implies a fair trial also, but it doesn't explicitly say it.

 

The 1st Ammendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I would think that if one was capable of seeing the implication of a fair trial in the sixth, he would easily see the implication of seperation of church and state in the first.

 

But on the other hand, sometimes I do give people too much credit.

[jimshiz]

Not the 6th Amendment, Article VI of the Constitution. 

320242[/snapback]

 

I know that he was talking about Article VI of the Constitution about the "religious test"; but I was referring to the 6th Amendment because of the phrase "impartial jury" and my thinking that would imply a "fair trial".

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

What is the difference between "Freedom OF religion" and "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion]..."?

 

For that matter, what's the difference between that and "freedom FROM religion"?

 

I did not say that "introducing for consideration in Congress a bill respecting the establishment of a religious basis as the ultimate foundation of the US Justice system" didn't violate the Constitution.  I just asked someone why Delay was an "idiot".

320253[/snapback]

 

And I said that Delay's an idiot because he introduced for consideration in Congress a bill respecting the establishment of a religious basis as the ultimate foundation of the US Justice system. And you took it off on a "Well, it is!" tangent, implying that Delay's NOT an idiot for pushing clearly and demonstrably unconstitutional legislation in violation of his oath of office.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I know that he was talking about Article VI of the Constitution about the "religious test"; but I was referring to the 6th Amendment because of the phrase "impartial jury" and my thinking that would imply a "fair trial".

320261[/snapback]

 

So you brought up the 6th Amendment, knowing it had no bearing on religion in government?

[Chilly]

What is the difference between "Freedom OF religion" and "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion]..."?

 

I did not say that "introducing for consideration in Congress a bill respecting the establishment of a religious basis as the ultimate foundation of the US Justice system" didn't violate the Constitution.  I just asked someone why Delay was an "idiot".

320253[/snapback]

 

You said, and I quote

 

God IS the highest authority in the justice system. Our entire system is based on God's law.

 

How, exactly, is God the head of the Justice system (what God, btw, you still avoid that question) if a religion isn't the basis of it? You said yourself, that would violate the constitution. In the words of a Mister Jack McCoy (who I consider my god btw), "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

 

 

I know that he was talking about Article VI of the Constitution about the "religious test"; but I was referring to the 6th Amendment because of the phrase "impartial jury" and my thinking that would imply a "fair trial".

320261[/snapback]

 

Read the article I posted, it talks about this.