Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!


brandymac27

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

So, an essential truth of Christianity, that salvation from Hell is only found in Jesus Christ, who is God (this implies that any theology that disagrees is deficient), is going to be considered hate speech.

 

This is the new dogma of the secular worldview. Nothing can be exclusive, unless of course you disagree with any secular tenets, then its ok to exclude you. You see how self-defeating that is?

That may be, and if that's the case, then its just Bernie acting not in the spirit of the Constitution (nothing new) and exposing more of his rancor (or maybe hate is now the appropriate word?) for those who disagree.


There is a separation of church and state for a reason.

You can believe what you want, but if you believe and operate from the position that a percentage of a population is automatically "condemned" for no fault other then not being in allegiance to a historical figure, then you shouldn't be in a political position that involves the representation of those very same people.

That person is evincing a prejudice that is a preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience, nor character or merit, but religious affiliation.

That was not a religious test, that was a test for prejudice.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:


There is a separation of church and state for a reason.

You can believe what you want, but if you believe and operate from the position that a percentage of a population is automatically "condemned" for no fault other then not being in allegiance to a historical figure, then you shouldn't be in a political position that involves the representation of those very same people.

That person is evincing a prejudice that is a preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience, nor character or merit, but religious affiliation.

 

So are you saying that anyone that isnt an atheist should not be in a political position?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:


There is a separation of church and state for a reason.

You can believe what you want, but if you believe and operate from the position that a percentage of a population is automatically "condemned" for no fault other then not being in allegiance to a historical figure, then you shouldn't be in a political position that involves the representation of those very same people.

That person is evincing a prejudice that is a preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience, nor character or merit, but religious affiliation.

That was not a religious test, that was a test for prejudice.
 

Yes it was. Bernie, Van Hollen, and you are very prejudiced indeed. You failed the test. With that logic, none of you are qualified to represent any Christians or Muslims or anybody who adheres to faith in addition to reason. Secularism is prejudiced and exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MisterPinstripe said:

So are you saying that anyone that isnt an atheist should not be in a political position?

 

 


Not at all. Such a line would ignore the fact that people with a certain level of emotional and mental maturity can gauge the content of a person's character and basic human value, despite having different beliefs. 

If you don't have that level of maturity and emotional competence and operate from a zero-sum game then you are not fit to represent a diverse population with beliefs and needs different from your own.

 

1 minute ago, Zguy28 said:

Yes it was. Bernie, Van Hollen, and you are very prejudiced indeed. You failed the test. With that logic, none of you are qualified to represent any Christians or Muslims or anybody who adheres to faith in addition to reason. Secularism is prejudiced and exclusive.


See above. I have no problem whatsoever with people of any religion who can put their beliefs to the side and govern and represent others based on the content of their character, rather than religious affiliation. Why? Because I'm not evaluating them on their belief in jesus christ, I'm evaluating them on their rapport with and behavior towards a class of people that he or she will be directly responsible for. 

It's a maturity thing. Not a religious affiliation thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:


Not at all. Such a line would ignore the fact that people with a certain level of emotional and mental maturity can gauge the content of a person's character and basic human value, despite having different beliefs. 

If you don't have that level of maturity and emotional competence and operate from a zero-sum game then you are not fit to represent a diverse population with beliefs and needs different from your own.

 


See above. I have no problem whatsoever with people of any religion who can put their beliefs to the side and govern and represent others based on the content of their character, rather than religious affiliation. Why? Because I'm not evaluating them on their belief in jesus christ, I'm evaluating them on their rapport with and behavior towards a class of people that he or she will be directly responsible for. 

It's a maturity thing. Not a religious affiliation thing.

For the vast majority of people their religion is the core of their being and massively impacts their character and how they act day to day. They cant/wont/shouldnt have to put their beliefs to the side, as atheists shouldnt be forced to put their beliefs to the side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:


Not at all. Such a line would ignore the fact that people with a certain level of emotional and mental maturity can gauge the content of a person's character and basic human value, despite having different beliefs. 

If you don't have that level of maturity and emotional competence and operate from a zero-sum game then you are not fit to represent a diverse population with beliefs and needs different from your own.

 


See above. I have no problem whatsoever with people of any religion who can put their beliefs to the side and govern and represent others based on the content of their character, rather than religious affiliation. Why? Because I'm not evaluating them on their belief in jesus christ, I'm evaluating them on their rapport with and behavior towards a class of people that he or she will be directly responsible for. 

It's a maturity thing. Not a religious affiliation thing.

Ok, and so in this case, the man wrote a theological statement regarding the Christian university where he worked, and made a theological statement. So, any person of faith, if they make a public statement that affirms what their religion believes, is henceforth then disqualified from public office? That IS what you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

For the vast majority of people their religion is the core of their being and massively impacts their character and how they act day to day. They cant/wont/shouldnt have to put their beliefs to the side, as atheists shouldnt be forced to put their beliefs to the side.

 

Now this would be a fascinating discussion in another thread because I certainly respect all people's religious or non-religious views, but I don't know that I agree that for the vast majority of people their religion is the core of their being. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hersh said:

 

Now this would be a fascinating discussion in another thread because I certainly respect all people's religious or non-religious views, but I don't know that I agree that for the vast majority of people their religion is the core of their being. 

Probably would be an interesting discussion. My point is someones religious beliefs, and atheists beliefs as well, forms your entire world view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MisterPinstripe said:

For the vast majority of people their religion is the core of their being and massively impacts their character and how they act day to day.


When I was born I was baptized catholic, in my teens I was baptized under baptist Christianity, and in my twenties I took my shahada and converted to Islam. I don't follow any of those religions anymore because I find them to be primitive and flawed and my spirit to have a stronger, personal connection with the universe outside of their bounds. But, the point of all that is I've practiced and been involved with people across all three religions throughout my life and guess what? Their all the same ****ing people man.

They all have different ranges of mental and emotional maturity and those on the more developed ranges, across all religions act in a similar way and those on the less developed ranges all act in a similar way. Different flavors of the same human behavior.

Yes, religion does or can have a major impact on character. But, character comes before religious affiliation. Religion is the "why" of character for some people, but character itself is much more than that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MisterPinstripe said:

Probably would be an interesting discussion. My point is someones religious beliefs, and atheists beliefs as well, forms your entire world view.

 

I don't agree with that at all. It may inform some of their views, but certainly not all of them. I would also say that there should be distinctions between genuine religious views and those that manipulate the meaning of religious texts in order to justify cruel actions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Ok, and so in this case, the man wrote a theological statement regarding the Christian university where he worked, and made a theological statement. So, any person of faith, if they make a public statement that affirms what their religion believes, is henceforth then disqualified from public office? That IS what you are saying.


Nope. It wasn't the theological statement that was a problem. No one has a problem with an official saying "Jesus is my lord and savior". The problem was the prejudicial condemnation of a group of people within that theological statement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Now this would be a fascinating discussion in another thread because I certainly respect all people's religious or non-religious views, but I don't know that I agree that for the vast majority of people their religion is the core of their being. 

Maybe not the vast majority, but certainly everybody finds their identity rooted in deeply held beliefs, whether that be theistic or atheistic or whatever. Because it has to do with belief in God shouldn't exclude them from having a voice in public policy. I disagree with secular dogma and policy a lot of the time, but I don't think those folks should be shouted down and discriminated against.

 

And I didn't want to start another thread for it, but it was a Trump nominee...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:


Nope. It wasn't the theological statement that was a problem. No one has a problem with an official saying "Jesus is my lord and savior". The problem was the prejudicial condemnation of a group of people within that theological statement.

 

Again, you have done the same thing with your statement. You have said "you are no good because of your belief." If you were as self-enlightened as you claim to be, you would see how hypocritical, prejudicial, and self-defeating your statements are. You ultimately have a problem with the idea of divine accountability and guilt, and anybody who believes in it.

 

Otherwise, you would see (or admit) that the condemnation spoken of is in the afterlife, not here (and not especially supposed to be by Christians), and that all people are made in God's image and worthy of dignity and respect (which btw, can include disagreeing in a civil manner without ostracizing). That's what the Left has lost. Maybe you should see your exclusivist dogma for what it is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Maybe not the vast majority, but certainly everybody finds their identity rooted in deeply held beliefs, whether that be theistic or atheistic or whatever. Because it has to do with belief in God shouldn't exclude them from having a voice in public policy. I disagree with secular dogma and policy a lot of the time, but I don't think those folks should be shouted down and discriminated against.

 

And I didn't want to start another thread for it, but it was a Trump nominee...

I certainly agree that one's personal religious identity should not be something that disqualifies them from public office. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zguy28 said:

Again, you have done the same thing with your statement. You have said "you are no good because of your [religious] belief." If you were as self-enlightened as you claim to be, you would see how hypocritical, prejudicial, and self-defeating your statements are. You ultimately have a problem with the idea of divine accountability and guilt, and anybody who believes in it.

 

Otherwise, you would see (or admit) that the condemnation spoken of is in the afterlife, not here (and not especially supposed to be by Christians), and that all people are made in God's image and worthy of dignity and respect (which btw, can include disagreeing in a civil manner without ostracizing). That's what the Left has lost. Maybe you should see your exclusivist dogma for what it is?


Whoa man, slow down.

That's a lot of baggage you're trying to pin on me. I understand that is how you seem to feel about people who disagree with you on this point, but that's not me. I'd appreciate if you stop putting words in my mouth and refrain from casting aspersions on who I "claim" to be as a person.

I never said the bolded. In fact, what I have done in each post is emphasize that the standard or test is on maturity and competency rather than belief or religious affiliation.

It's about how you behave and operate towards people who believe differently and the development of mental and emotional competency that affords a person those capabilities. If you have those in place you tend to treat people better despite your religion and if you don't then you tend to treat people worse, again despite your religion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:


Whoa man, slow down.

That's a lot of baggage you're trying to pin on me. I understand that is how you seem to feel about people who disagree with you on this point, but that's not me. I'd appreciate if you stop putting words in my mouth and refrain from casting aspersions on who I "claim" to be as a person.

I never said the bolded. In fact, what I have done in each post is emphasize that the standard or test is on maturity and competency rather than belief or religious affiliation.

It's about how you behave and operate towards people who believe differently and the development of mental and emotional competency that affords a person those capabilities. If you have those in place you tend to treat people better despite your religion and if you don't then you tend to treat people worse, again despite your religion.

 

You may not have said those exact words, but the implication of your statements is that those who hold to religious beliefs (like the reality of judgment and Hell) are not mature either mentally or emotionally. 

 

What you don't realize my friend, is that while you think you are being equitable, you actually are being exclusive and condescending (without realizing it). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

What you don't realize my friend, is that while you think you are being equitable, you actually are being exclusive and condescending (without realizing it). :)

What he said and wrote was wholly inappropriate. What Bernie Sanders asked was absolutely appropriate and the spin of it being a religious test is utter nonsense. Somebody says something like that and they are being considered for high office in federal government, they need to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

What he said and wrote was wholly inappropriate. What Bernie Sanders asked was absolutely appropriate and the spin of it being a religious test is utter nonsense. Somebody says something like that and they are being considered for high office in federal government, they need to clarify.

That's what I love about the USA, you are entitled to be wrong. Enjoy your freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

Apparently ol uncle Bernie wants to put a religious test in place for Trump nominees for public office.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448393/watch-bernie-sanders-unconstitutionally-impose-religious-test-public-office

 

EDIT: and please address the content of the exchange between Bernie and the nominee, not the source of the link's conservative bias.

 

You lead in with an insult and then parrot the click-bait title of the article. And voila, the discussion has turned into exactly what the click-bait title asserts. 

 

So your request to ignore bias is denied. :) As for the assertion, I fully support, 100% any type of test that accurately and fairly prevents someone like Abigail Whelan or Betsy Devos from being able to hold public office for their goofy ****. And in terms of BUDGET I have even smaller issues with more concise vetting. 

 

Let's see ol uncle Bernie in action:

2007 Speech against Bush budget: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5m9X_xcIUw

2007 Questioning budget director Jim Nussle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl404KNfENg&t=136s

2007 Questioning Hank Paulson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GHSrySrn4U

 

2015 Speech against Paul Ryan budget: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB7kZrz-_SY

Of course our current budget and Mulvaney recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1XKkWvXEAY

Here's a couple for fun against Alan Greenspan and his consumer based economics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPh-qGcYruw 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GHSrySrn4U

And further, questioning Bernake in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6NR_rRovyM

 

 

 

People can educate themselves a little and form their own opinions on what politicians should be on the budget committees.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

You may not have said those exact words, but the implication of your statements is that those who hold to religious beliefs (like the reality of judgment and Hell) are not mature either mentally or emotionally. 

 

What you don't realize my friend, is that while you think you are being equitable, you actually are being exclusive and condescending (without realizing it). :)


I can't control what you take my words to mean outside of what I explicitly say, but I am telling you that your implication is not what I am attempting to communicate to you. It appears to me that you seem to be missing the nuance and careful differentiation in my words.

Let me see if I can be clearer for you.

I am not categorizing all people who believe in divine judgement and hell as mentally and emotionally immature. That belief is not the standard I am using to measure mental and emotional maturity.

I am saying a person is immature and unfit for office if they behave and relate and operate towards a group of people with a prejudice based primarily on religious affiliation, in lieu of a rigorous examination of the content of their character. An atheist would not be fit for office if his or her prejudice for people who believe in Jesus Christ kept him from being able to treat those people as equal human beings afforded the same standards of character and human decency.

This is about how you see and treat people. Not what a person believes or doesn't believe.

12 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

What he said and wrote was wholly inappropriate. What Bernie Sanders asked was absolutely appropriate and the spin of it being a religious test is utter nonsense. Somebody says something like that and they are being considered for high office in federal government, they need to clarify.


Are you saying what I wrote was wholly inappropriate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:


I can't control what you take my words to mean outside of what I explicitly say, but I am telling you that your implication is not what I am attempting to communicate to you. It appears to me that you seem to be missing the nuance and careful differentiation in my words.

Let me see if I can be clearer for you.

I am not categorizing all people who believe in divine judgement and hell as mentally and emotionally immature. That belief is not the standard I am using to measure mental and emotional maturity.

I am saying a person is immature and unfit for office if they behave and relate and operate towards a group of people with a prejudice based primarily on religious affiliation, in lieu of a rigorous examination of the content of their character. An atheist would not be fit for office if his or her prejudice for people who believe in Jesus Christ kept him from being able to treat those people as equal human beings afforded he same standards of character and human decency.

This is about how you see and treat people. Not what a person believes or doesn't believe.

Got it. So, if I agree with this statement, does that make me unfit?

 

John 3:16-18English Standard Version (ESV)

 

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

 

These are the words of Jesus and a essential tenet of the Christian religion, believed by billions and pretty much exactly what the man said ("Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned." )

 

How does an essential of the Christian religion make one person unfit (or "prejudiced")?

 

 

9 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

That's cute.

No, the Islamaphobe.

Aw, thanks, you ol' Christophobe. ;)

 

Anyway, I think we can agree to disagree, and we've taken this afar afield from the original thread intent as maybe we should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2017 at 7:22 PM, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

 

Side story - A friend in the Military working over in the middle-east right now responded to this Saudi/Qatar stuff with "We're not sure he knows we have a huge base in Qatar"

Maybe SA will want his library whenever this is over. They can put it in the airport. Fill it with Arabic versions of Archie Comics or something. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Got it. So, if I agree with this statement, does that make me unfit?

 

John 3:16-18English Standard Version (ESV)

 

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

 

These are the words of Jesus and a essential tenet of the Christian religion, believed by billions and pretty much exactly what the man said ("Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned." )

 

How does an essential of the Christian religion make one person unfit (or "prejudiced")?

 


Well, answer me this then. How will that belief influence your ability to offer equal representation and protection to those who do not believe? Do you recognize and abide by the separation of church and state and equal treatment of all, despite them having beliefs that might run contrary to yours? If I am "condemned" in your eyes, as are others who may be gay, or believe in a different deity, or none at all, will you represent my and their interests without prejudice?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...