Are some rescues just not worth it?

[akflightmedic]

Again you reference "ingrained in our history" and again I will ask where that is from...certainly not the Declaration, nor the Constitution, nor the Treaty of Tripoli. It became ingrained only a few short decades ago during McCarthyism.

They should not have any expectation of faith from a candidate as this is not what is important. It is part of the education process, informing people that morals are independent of religion. Having no belief does not give me or anyone else a free pass to rape, murder, steal or eat babies. I actually will vote against candidates because of their religious views because if they profess that faith so much, I know it will impact their policies later on.

I rather have a man of no faith in charge of the big red button than one who is devout. The man with no faith knows this is his only life, it is precious and everything we do impacts us now. This man will not push the big button until there is absolutely no alternative.

A man of faith may think differently. he may say, oh well, time to meet my maker and move onto bigger and better things! Armageddon here we come!

See how this is concerning to us with no god? A man whose religion looks forward to the end days controlling my destiny is not a place I wish to be.

Do not even get me started on the Mormons or LDS who are running for office, or the Alaskan candidate who wants to dictate rules which cannot even be enforced in her own home or the other female candidate (Batshittery Bauchman whose husband is as gay as they come). It is amazing these people think they know better than me, they know what is right for me...bull shit.

So yes, religion needs to be separated and it will be a long uphill trek but it is one I am willing to take. After I return home soon or sell my business I have every intent to enter politics on the local level starting with PTA, then school board, then city council. I will effect change one way or another.

[Just Plain Ruff]

Again you reference "ingrained in our history" and again I will ask where that is from...certainly not the Declaration, nor the Constitution, nor the Treaty of Tripoli. It became ingrained only a few short decades ago during McCarthyism.

They should not have any expectation of faith from a candidate as this is not what is important. It is part of the education process, informing people that morals are independent of religion. Having no belief does not give me or anyone else a free pass to rape, murder, steal or eat babies. I actually will vote against candidates because of their religious views because if they profess that faith so much, I know it will impact their policies later on.

I rather have a man of no faith in charge of the big red button than one who is devout. The man with no faith knows this is his only life, it is precious and everything we do impacts us now. This man will not push the big button until there is absolutely no alternative.

A man of faith may think differently. he may say, oh well, time to meet my maker and move onto bigger and better things! Armageddon here we come!

See how this is concerning to us with no god? A man whose religion looks forward to the end days controlling my destiny is not a place I wish to be.

Do not even get me started on the Mormons or LDS who are running for office, or the Alaskan candidate who wants to dictate rules which cannot even be enforced in her own home or the other female candidate (Batshittery Bauchman whose husband is as gay as they come). It is amazing these people think they know better than me, they know what is right for me...bull shit.

So yes, religion needs to be separated and it will be a long uphill trek but it is one I am willing to take. After I return home soon or sell my business I have every intent to enter politics on the local level starting with PTA, then school board, then city council. I will effect change one way or another.

I applaud you for your desire to run and change the world, starting with your small area of influence and branching out.

Let me ask you this, in all honesty, do you think that you will be successful? I hope you are successful but I think it will be a very difficult time for you to succeed based on religion being so important to voters. I do wish you success though. Maybe you are what's needed.

So to the text of the declaration here is the first paragraph "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"

I see two things, first is the assumption of powers of the earth by whcih the laws of nature and Nature's God entitle them. Who is nature's God?

Second paragraph "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, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So who is the creator? Who are they referring to?

Another paragraph(part of) "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." Who's divine providence?

Who are they talking about? Who is the creator and who's divine providence.

The constitution: I don't see really a single reference to God in that document. Granted I did not read it fully and all the way through but what I did read, I didn't see anything about God there.

So it seems to me that God was on the minds of the framers of the Declaration yet not on the minds of the framers of the constitution. Wierd since many of the same men who signed the Declaration also were a part of the forming of the constitution and it's framework and behind the scenes work.

[akflightmedic]

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:

"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 tranquility, 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." John Adams

By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.

[Just Plain Ruff]

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:

"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 tranquility, 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." John Adams

By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.

Cool, I was actually going to the treaty of tripoli next.

That's informative in the least.

Again, lots' t to think about, some things you've said make a LOT of sense yet others to me do not. But that's my job to decide which makes more sense.

Have we moved this personal topic far enough, are we ready to end it? I actually am. How bout you?

I am at the Barton website. What particularly do you dislike about his views. I don't have the time nor the energy to sift through all the rhetoric that I KNOW he will have. I do know that I already don't like his picture. But then again, what viewpoints of his do you think I should focus on to get a overview of what he thinks? You obviously have a real issue with him and since I've never heard of him I don't have the common frame of reference on him that you do.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Ruffems

[akflightmedic]

You are correct that the Constitution makes NO mention of god, this is why most debaters on the side you take avoid discussing it.

As for the Declaration, check the dates. The Declaration does not represent any law of the United States as it was signed BEFORE the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution).

The declaration is nothing more than a historical document which upholds no laws today. It was a list of our grievances to leave mother England and since we no longer have these grievances nor do we have 13 states, it is a null and void document. We separated, we formed our Constitution and here we are today.

The author envisioned a government designed and upheld by people and not a superstitious or religious monarchy.

All men created equal means we all have equal access to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...not that someone made us equal.

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men"--it says nothing about these rights being secured by Christianity.

The mention of god in the document does not mean the Christian god. Thomas Jefferson wrote the majority of the declaration and he was a deist. Referencing Nature's god was right in sync with a deist's philosophy--this even applies to those with pantheistical beliefs.

As for the "supreme Judge" and "divine Providence" comments you need to know how they came to be both historically and politically. Jefferson did not write this, it was inserted by the Second Continental Congress into Jefferson's draft. Call it strategic piety if you will. American Calvinists were the largest group at that time in the new colony--so they were trying to win hearts and minds with words of appeasement to their particular faith. Hypocritical, eh?

How about Jefferson's original draft which read as follows: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

That was the original intent until again someone else insisted a deity reference be made.

I rather enjoy it. Keeps me out of trouble when I have idle time....LOL.

As for Barton, he bends the truth significantly knowing that most people will never take the time to perform their own research. This is my main frustration, people are intellectually lazy. I love history and religious history so I am not bored by independent studies and research. However I accept my geekiness as readily as others accept their favorite hobbies.

Barton has a voice, he has climbed his way to a national podium and he speaks too many inaccuracies. He is a self proclaimed American History expert and stuffs his pockets by selling religion in America (historically speaking). It is annoying.

[Just Plain Ruff]

You are correct that the Constitution makes NO mention of god, this is why most debaters on the side you take avoid discussing it.

As for the Declaration, check the dates. The Declaration does not represent any law of the United States as it was signed BEFORE the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution).

The declaration is nothing more than a historical document which upholds no laws today. It was a list of our grievances to leave mother England and since we no longer have these grievances nor do we have 13 states, it is a null and void document. We separated, we formed our Constitution and here we are today.

The author envisioned a government designed and upheld by people and not a superstitious or religious monarchy.

All men created equal means we all have equal access to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...not that someone made us equal.

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men"--it says nothing about these rights being secured by Christianity.

The mention of god in the document does not mean the Christian god. Thomas Jefferson wrote the majority of the declaration and he was a deist. Referencing Nature's god was right in sync with a deist's philosophy--this even applies to those with pantheistical beliefs.

As for the "supreme Judge" and "divine Providence" comments you need to know how they came to be both historically and politically. Jefferson did not write this, it was inserted by the Second Continental Congress into Jefferson's draft. Call it strategic piety if you will. American Calvinists were the largest group at that time in the new colony--so they were trying to win hearts and minds with words of appeasement to their particular faith. Hypocritical, eh?

How about Jefferson's original draft which read as follows: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

That was the original intent until again someone else insisted a deity reference be made.

I rather enjoy it. Keeps me out of trouble when I have idle time....LOL.

As for Barton, he bends the truth significantly knowing that most people will never take the time to perform their own research. This is my main frustration, people are intellectually lazy. I love history and religious history so I am not bored by independent studies and research. However I accept my geekiness as readily as others accept their favorite hobbies.

Barton has a voice, he has climbed his way to a national podium and he speaks too many inaccuracies. He is a self proclaimed American History expert and stuffs his pockets by selling religion in America (historically speaking). It is annoying.

Great info and much I did not know.

Do you have a specific book that you got this from or is it just from your past experiences and education?

I also do know that the declaration is not law. Never meant to infer it to be law, I was just pointing out the God/Deity words. I was assuming they meant the christian god but who knows, maybe they did maybe they didn't.

I'm gonna go look up Jeffersons drafts. I actually had an opportuinity a long long time ago to purchase a set of Jefferson's complete papers collection. I should have done that. It would have made a very nice addition to my library.

[akflightmedic]

As mentioned before, I have a slew of websites I frequent and tons of books on every religion/belief I can find. I am a voracious reader on these subjects, I watch youtube clips on those I support and those I do not support. I listen to both sides, I study historical references for fact checking and then I either accept the facts in front of me or I cover my eyes and ears while saying LA LA LA very loudly until the truth goes away. It works for many people out there.

[Just Plain Ruff]

You covering your eyes, can't see it.

[akflightmedic]

At times...we all do.

[crotchitymedic1986]

Holy Holy Wars Batman