Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Dem Senators put a gun to SCOTUS he (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=846257)

  • Aug 21, 2019, 04:01 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    You cool with banning the sale of assault weapons and HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES? What about comprehensive and THOROUGH background checks or age limits maybe with a responsible SPONSOR?
    Sorry. Just now saw it.

    1. Ban so-called assault weapons? Yes, so long as we can get a rock-ribbed agreement that it will go no further than that. What will you do with existing weapons?

    2. High capacity mags? Probably not.

    3. Don't really know what you mean by a "comprehensive and thorough" background check. We already have background checks for most gun purchases. Checking on mental health issues cannot be done due to confidentiality concerns. I would think a background check for criminal behavior could be worked out.

    4. Age limit? Already have that. It's 18, same age as being able to vote or join the military.

    5. Responsible sponsor? Nope.

    But before I would agree to any of that, I would want someone to answer the question. What changed over the last fifty years to land us in this mess?

    Quote:

    Wage increase because of change to a different job.
    Raise while working the same job.
    OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration?
  • Aug 21, 2019, 04:43 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration?

    I've worked for several wonderful companies, but who would get a 25% raise???? (I stole a few of Athos' question marks.)
  • Aug 21, 2019, 04:43 PM
    paraclete
    Your arguments are all good, however, if you do the same thing over and over again and nothing changes then this is madness. You asked what changed.
    Quote:

    I would want someone to answer the question. What changed over the last fifty years to land us in this mess?

    SCOTUS changed the way the second amendment was perceived in the same way as they amplified other rights until the whole argument became about rights
  • Aug 21, 2019, 04:48 PM
    talaniman
    1. Ban so-called assault weapons? Yes, so long as we can get a rock-ribbed agreement that it will go no further than that. What will you do with existing weapons? Buy backs or if registered NOTHING, but cannot be sold or traded.

    2. High capacity mags? Probably not. Guess we work on it some.

    3. Don't really know what you mean by a "comprehensive and thorough" background check. We already have background checks for most gun purchases. Checking on mental health issues cannot be done due to confidentiality concerns. I would think a background check for criminal behavior could be worked out. I think closing those gun show loopholes and the same evaluation the military does would be what I'm getting at, including mental and emotional before you give 'em a gun. That covers those with no criminal, or mental, emotional problems that could make them a danger. I remind you that not just the military but employers have this as a routine requirement for employment depending on the job, and even financials and social media checks.

    4. Age limit? Already have that. It's 18, same age as being able to vote or join the military. No military no gun at 18 without a sponsor. I feel rather strongly that voting and volunteering isn't the same as selling a gun to a teen ager. In the US the drinking age is 21, so not a real big trade off though and saving lives is the goal and priority.

    5. Responsible sponsor? Nope. Like I say for teen agers, like a dad or uncle who hunts. Worrisome that when a young person turns 18 his record of past problems gets expunged like the Ohio shooter. To buy a gun, those records should be available to the ones doing the background check in full confidentiality of course., as well as any results from being evaluated.

    But before I would agree to any of that, I would want someone to answer the question. What changed over the last fifty years to land us in this mess? The original assault ban was never renewed, and a lot more people are falling through the cracks that have real issues that needed addressing. We did close a bunch of metal hospitals, and the system that was left is horribly inadequate. That I think is part of it just ignoring the problem to long. Plus the politics of special interests like the NRA making sure nothing gets done no matter who gets killed is a huge factor. They are trying to kill any reforms now even after the trauma of horrific shootings that rocked the nation. If trained soldiers can suffer from PTSD what make you think ordinary people cannot?



    Quote:

    Wage increase because of change to a different job.
    Raise while working the same job.


    OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration? Big difference between the boss giving you a raise and you getting an unfamilar job in a differnt place for more money. That's what it seems to me. Some adjust better than others I suppose.
  • Aug 21, 2019, 05:24 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    No military no gun at 18 without a sponsor. I feel rather strongly that voting and volunteering isn't the same as selling a gun to a teen ager. In the US the drinking age is 21, so not a real big trade off though and saving lives is the goal and priority.
    Might be reasonable. Let's also put the 10 commandments back up on school house walls. Are you good with that? Compromise?

    Your super-complicated and expensive background check is out of the question. Finding out if a person has committed a felony is fairly straightforward and simple. Doing an extensive mental exam is not going to happen.

    Quote:

    OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration? Big difference between the boss giving you a raise and you getting an unfamilar job in a differnt place for more money. That's what it seems to me. Some adjust better than others I suppose.
    That WAS my illustration. A person left a burger place and went to a chicken place. It changes the illustration not one bit. People leave one job for another all the time and they do it frequently for a raise/wage increase or whatever in the world you want to call it.
  • Aug 21, 2019, 06:36 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Might be reasonable. Let's also put the 10 commandments back up on school house walls. Are you good with that? Compromise?

    Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway. It certainly won't inspire love for God and each other, which was Jesus' command. Better would be for us to invite people and bring them into our emptying Christian churches and help parents in their child-raising efforts as they teach their kids moral values.
  • Aug 21, 2019, 07:05 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway. It certainly won't inspire love for God and each other, which was Jesus' command. Better would be for us to invite people and bring them into our emptying Christian churches and help parents in their child-raising efforts as they teach their kids moral values.
    1. The Ten Commandments are not associated with a specific religion. They apply to Jews, Moslems, and Christians.
    2. Do you think things have gone better since we took them down?
    3. How do you know it won't inspire love for God and our fellow man?
    4. I am all for filling our churches, but wouldn't it help parents in their child raising efforts if those children saw the Ten Commandments on a daily basis? It would amount to a national moral code.
    5. Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
    6. You know, for someone who professes to be a Christian, I am amazed that you would think the posting of scripture would not accomplish "a darn thing". I mean that is an astonishing comment.
  • Aug 21, 2019, 07:18 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    1. The Ten Commandments are not associated with a specific religion. They apply to Jews, Moslems, and Christians.

    Doesn't matter. Christianity is where you're coming from.
    Quote:

    2. Do you think things have gone better since we took them down?
    They weren't ever there.
    Quote:

    3. How do you know it won't inspire love for God and our fellow man?
    They won't. They'll do just the opposite.
    Quote:

    4. I am all for filling our churches, but wouldn't it help parents in their child raising efforts if those children saw the Ten Commandments on a daily basis? It would amount to a national moral code.
    Post those Commandments on the refrigerator at home, the bathroom mirror, the child's closet door.
    Quote:

    5. Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
    Uhm, did I say it was?
    Quote:

    6. You know, for someone who professes to be a Christian, I am amazed that you would think the posting of scripture would not accomplish "a darn thing".
    Nope. I've lived long enough and have seen that sort of thing fail multiple times.
  • Aug 21, 2019, 08:18 PM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.


    Neither are the Ten Commandments.
  • Aug 21, 2019, 08:40 PM
    tomder55
    there has not been a single shooting where a gun law hasn't been violated . Proposals stated above are now common . What they ignore is that there is already quite a list of Federal laws .
    https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-l...ting-firearms/

    Beto wants mandatory buy backs . Sparticus wants federal licenses .Warren wants to tax guns to death . Harris will give Congress 100 days before she issues unspecified severe executive orders . Tough back round checks ? All the killers passed back round checks before purchasing guns because there was nothing obvious without 20-20 hindsight that would've put them in a 'red flag' option . Other shooters buy them on the black market or steal them ;both acts already illegal. And of course it would be law enforcing citizens who would comply ;not someone intent on murder .

    I'll tell you what would work ;or at least would be a huge deterrent ...the Israeli model. This comes under the premise that when seconds count ;law enforcement is minutes away. The Israelis require all off duty soldiers to carry their weapons. We should do the same requiring all military, police officers, and others who carry and use weapons as a routine part of their job to carry off duty . It is not a sure 100% chance that all attacks would be stopped . But as Dayton showed ;seconds count .
  • Aug 22, 2019, 05:08 AM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    They won't. They'll do just the opposite.
    The bottom line seems to be that you consider posting the will and Word of God to be an exercise in futility. That's very sad to have such a low view of the effectiveness of scripture. Makes me wonder what your church reads. "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it pierces even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow." I haven't found the scripture yet that says, "The word of God is very weak and will not accomplish a darn thing." And NO, I am not putting you down. I am trying to understand your thinking. I don't get it.

    At any rate, it seems very logical to me for our country to adopt a common moral standard. Would it affect every child to see "thou shall not commit murder" posted on the wall? No, but it would affect a lot of them. It's a little late in the game to be trying to weed out potential mass killers when they are 20 years old.

    We can pass new laws, but it is very difficult to legally control what has become a significantly immoral population. The end result is frequently to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

    Quote:

    Uhm, did I say it was?
    Then why did you mention it? It is not a principle of law.

    Quote:

    I'll tell you what would work ;or at least would be a huge deterrent ...the Israeli model. This comes under the premise that when seconds count ;law enforcement is minutes away. The Israelis require all off duty soldiers to carry their weapons. We should do the same requiring all military, police officers, and others who carry and use weapons as a routine part of their job to carry off duty . It is not a sure 100% chance that all attacks would be stopped . But as Dayton showed ;seconds count .
    That's an interesting idea, but it just reminds me of the central question. Why has our country changed so much in just fifty years? What happened? No one was suggesting these remedies fifty years ago. We did not have mass-shooting "lockdown" drills in our schools fifty years ago. What has changed so much that we have to have them now?
  • Aug 22, 2019, 06:06 AM
    tomder55
    i don't put too much thought into that . It is what it is . No one is going to go back to the Willowbrook days of institutional mental facilities Not likey to go back to the days when kids in the rifle club at school brought their weapons onto school grounds either . The idea above is not 100% . So I'm sure there will be a lot of "what if " questions . As we have learned ;no gun law or set of gun laws are 100 % either including the so called 'assault weapon' ban . (Columbine happened in the years o the ban) Take for example the one about restricting the number of bullets in a magazine . But it is easy to turn one magazine into 2.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCxGH_B2JnE
  • Aug 22, 2019, 06:21 AM
    jlisenbe
    Yeah. If someone is determined, they can carry out any kind of plan. Take a guy who cannot get an "assault rifle", but instead has two semi-auto pistols with 12 round mags and multiple clips to use. He can still kill a lot of people. I just have practically no confidence in limiting the sale of "assault" rifles.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 06:24 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    i don't put too much thought into that . It is what it is . No one is going to go back to the Willowbrook days of institutional mental facilities Not likey to go back to the days when kids in the rifle club at school brought their weapons onto school grounds either . The idea above is not 100% . So I'm sure there will be a lot of "what if " questions . As we have learned ;no gun law or set of gun laws are 100 % either including the so called 'assault weapon' ban . (Columbine happened in the years o the ban) Take for example the one about restricting the number of bullets in a magazine . But it is easy to turn one magazine into 2.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCxGH_B2JnE

    You do know what is insane is that this debate is still going on. All you have is a talkfest while people are dying. There are effective ways of dealing with the problem but it will never happen while ever the gun is sacrosanct or sacred
  • Aug 22, 2019, 07:17 AM
    tomder55
    oh if everyone could just live on the beach and grill shrimps . With the number of federal,state ,and local gun laws ,you could hardly call guns sacrosanct here .
    Any mass killer is a random outlier who is rarely possible to identify in advance. I think that it is impossible to do anything more that will prevent these people from obtaining weapons. There is also an over blown hysteria factor in this . Of 39,000 gun deaths in 2016 ,451 were from mass killings Again no one mentions the other killings .

    Here are the key Federal Gun laws
    https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-l...ating-firearms

    They aren't working so of course it means we need to double down and create more laws for criminals to break ;and maybe grab some other law abiding citizens practicing their rights under the constitution in the sweep .
  • Aug 22, 2019, 07:59 AM
    jlisenbe
    I really get your point, Tom. If we had outlawed the sale of "assault" weapons ten years ago, I imagine we would still have had about the same situation in gun violence. I don't think the average mass killer will say, "I was going to go out and shoot up the place today, but I decided not to since I couldn't buy an AR." No, I think they would buy a Glock 17 with 5 magazines and go ahead with his/her plan. Our hearts have become calloused.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 08:31 AM
    talaniman
    We still have thoughts and prayers as our default position. Which is better than the conservative nothing we can do about it meme. Or maybe it's the same thing.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 08:44 AM
    Wondergirl
    Uhm, did I say it was?


    Quote:

    Then why did you mention it? It is not a principle of law.
    I didn't mention it.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 08:53 AM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    I didn't mention it.
    Note the quote from your post below.

    "Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway."
  • Aug 22, 2019, 10:14 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Note the quote from your post below.

    "Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway."

    As I said, I didn't mention it, "it" being the Constitution. YOU are the one who tossed it into the accusation.

    https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...post-right.png
    Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 12:04 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    As I said, I didn't mention it, "it" being the Constitution. YOU are the one who tossed it into the accusation.
    OK. Then, to be specific, why did you mention "separation of church and state"? It is not a principle of law and not found in the Constitution, so I don't see any relevance.

    There was no accusation. It was a simple question. It still is.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 12:39 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    OK. Then, to be specific, why did you mention "separation of church and state"? It is not a principle of law and not found in the Constitution, so I don't see any relevance.

    There was no accusation. It was a simple question. It still is.

    Churches and religious schools, charities, etc. are tax exempt. Why?
  • Aug 22, 2019, 01:03 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    Churches and religious schools, charities, etc. are tax exempt. Why?
    As far as I know it's the same reason that the United Way is tax exempt. Charitable organizations.

    But I still don't know why you brought up separation of church and state.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 02:13 PM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    As far as I know it's the same reason that the United Way is tax exempt. Charitable organizations.

    Wrong. Churches and religious schools are tax exempt because they are religious organizations.

    Quote:

    But I still don't know why you brought up separation of church and state.
    Wrong again. Separation of church and state is simply Jefferson's way of rephrasing the First Amendment which is part of the Constitution.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 02:27 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    Wrong again. Separation of church and state is simply Jefferson's way of rephrasing the First Amendment which is part of the Constitution.
    OK. I couldn't be "wrong" since I did not assert anything. I asked a question. It is a simple concept.

    As far as the tax exempt question is concerned, I pretty clearly said "as far as I know", so I wasn't trying to make a hard and fast statement.

    And I still don't know why WG would have brought up "separation of church and state". It is not a principle of law. It appeared in a letter written by Jefferson and holds no formal standing in law.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 02:36 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    And I still don't know why WG would have brought up "separation of church and state". It is not a principle of law. It appeared in a letter written by Jefferson and holds no formal standing in law.

    The US is not a Christian nation. "The First Amendment was specifically designed to prohibit established churches, and at the Constitutional Convention attempts to write in some sort of nominal support for Christianity always failed."
    https://www.learnreligions.com/is-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-248215
  • Aug 22, 2019, 03:35 PM
    jlisenbe
    But as I have posted before, the 10 Commandments are not solely Christian. Jews and Moslems claim that text as well. And if I was an atheist, I would still be all in for posting them. Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't commit adultery. Even the commandments about the worship of God tell us to put something above ourselves. It makes for a much more ordered and peaceful society if we honor them. In fact, I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose putting such basic moral values on schoolhouse walls. It is NOT an establishment of a national religion anymore than having "In God we trust" on our coins or as our national motto.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 03:49 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    But as I have posted before, the 10 Commandments are not solely Christian. Jews and Moslems claim that text as well. And if I was an atheist, I would still be all in for posting them. Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't commit adultery. Even the commandments about the worship of God tell us to put something above ourselves. It makes for a much more ordered and peaceful society if we honor them. In fact, I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose putting such basic moral values on schoolhouse walls. It is NOT an establishment of a national religion anymore than having "In God we trust" on our coins or as our national motto.

    But posting the Ten Commandments won't be the end of it. Then the demand will be for schoolteachers to spend class time talking with students about the Commandments ... and the Bible ... and Jesus. Reminds me of gun owners who say that "won't be the end of it" if assault weapons are confiscated.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 04:14 PM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    And I still don't know why WG would have brought up "separation of church and state". It is not a principle of law. It appeared in a letter written by Jefferson and holds no formal standing in law.


    Everybody - but you apparently - knows perfectly well what separation of church and state means. Totally proper to bring up in this conversation.

    Also, after the Ten Commandments, do we post in the classroom the 8 precepts of Buddhism, its 4 Noble Paths, the I Ching of Tao, and whatever holy sayings the Hindus and the Shintoists and the Bahai crowd have? Then there's the Native Americans, etc., etc., etc.

    Or did you think the only religions were Judaism, Christianity and Islam?
  • Aug 22, 2019, 05:46 PM
    talaniman
    Do you propose a federal law mandating it? Or a federal law giving local school districts that authority to allow it? Or a SCOTUS ruling to overturn the 1962 Scotus ruling against public school prayer, or any other religious instruction that's not in an educational context? The individual is however, as WG stated, allowed to pray silently to themselves in a non disruptive way.
  • Aug 22, 2019, 07:32 PM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    But posting the Ten Commandments won't be the end of it. Then the demand will be for schoolteachers to spend class time talking with students about the Commandments ... and the Bible ... and Jesus. Reminds me of gun owners who say that "won't be the end of it" if assault weapons are confiscated.
    That's the "slippery slope" argument. It can be used endlessly. "I won't agree with doing away with assault weapons because I know you are really after handguns as well." But there is no real reason for believing what you describe above will happen.

    Quote:

    Everybody - but you apparently - knows perfectly well what separation of church and state means. Totally proper to bring up in this conversation.
    I know exactly what it means. Unlike you, I also know separation of church/state is not formal law.

    Quote:

    Also, after the Ten Commandments, do we post in the classroom the 8 precepts of Buddhism, its 4 Noble Paths, the I Ching of Tao, and whatever holy sayings the Hindus and the Shintoists and the Bahai crowd have? Then there's the Native Americans, etc., etc., etc.

    Or did you think the only religions were Judaism, Christianity and Islam?
    I know there are other religions, but no, I don't think their precepts should be displayed. The Ten Commandments are the historical moral precepts of this country and have been accepted as so for the past two hundred years or more. Do you see the 8 precepts of Buddhism posted at the entrance to the Supreme Court chambers?

    Quote:

    Do you propose a federal law mandating it? Or a federal law giving local school districts that authority to allow it? Or a SCOTUS ruling to overturn the 1962 Scotus ruling against public school prayer, or any other religious instruction that's not in an educational context? The individual is however, as WG stated, allowed to pray silently to themselves in a non disruptive way.
    I have not called for prayer. As for the Ten Commandments, it would take a Supreme Court ruling as far as I know. I would suggest it be left up to the individual states. I don't see it happening. My main point is that since SCOTUS decided that having the Ten Commandments displayed, which had been done for 150 years, was suddenly a violation of the Constitution, we have lost our moorings as a country. We did not have this large number of mass shootings in the fifties and sixties. You want to restrict gun ownership. I want to establish some public morals.
  • Aug 23, 2019, 03:35 AM
    talaniman
    Maybe we should start by electing moral leaders that keep your Judeo Christian 10 commandments. Obviously we fall short in that regard.

    Quote:

    I know there are other religions, but no, I don't think their precepts should be displayed. The Ten Commandments are the historical moral precepts of this country and have been accepted as so for the past two hundred years or more. Do you see the 8 precepts of Buddhism posted at the entrance to the Supreme Court chambers?

    That is emblematic of your whole problem. There is no room in your acceptance for any one except YOU. I don't think the shootings and violence we are experiencing is a moral issue, but a natural progression of more human failings. Maybe we didn't have as many mass shootings in the 50's and sixties, but there was plenty of riots lynching's protests school and church bombings assassinations and injustice and abject cruelty by so called moral people against the deemed others going back to when Euros first came to these lands.

    Our history is not a great example of practicing the morals you preach. Maybe the chickens are coming home to roost as we try to form a better union.
  • Aug 23, 2019, 05:04 AM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    I don't think the shootings and violence we are experiencing is a moral issue, but a natural progression of more human failings.
    That is an incredible statement. The killing of a dozen innocent human beings is not a moral issue??? Wow. I can only assume you have not had your coffee yet.

    Quote:

    That is emblematic of your whole problem. There is no room in your acceptance for any one except YOU.
    Well, me and the more than 300 million other Americans whose religious heritage would include Christian, Jewish, or Moslem beliefs, and not to mention the more than 200 years of history which has been dominated by Biblical beliefs going all the way back to the Declaration of Independence. So yeah, it's a little more than just me.
  • Aug 23, 2019, 05:42 AM
    talaniman
    You can deny your own failings all you want, but don't try to make me believe in your perfection when clearly it is your domination you are exploiting and to be frank always have been. Now you can wrap that into morality all you want but history is a clear indication that your domination over others is not just flawed, but has consequences as well. Of course you wish for those days back when you could be so cruel in the name of your God that entitled you, but that's changing so maybe instead of continuing down the path of entitled domination you learn to share with the former ones you dominated with your flawed, cruel, hypocritical DOMINATION.

    I doubt 300 million people agree with your assessment, and while it's still your majority, I think good people of your own race reject your claim of entitled majority domination and really do want liberty and justice for all men being equal. Embrace the equality my friend and be better for it and a peaceful outcome. This is the way you can build your moral credibility, which your cruelty greatly overshadows.
  • Aug 23, 2019, 06:32 AM
    tomder55
    There is no 'separation of church and state ' Jefferson wasn't even in the country and was certainly no framer of the constitution . He was not involved in the debates about the amendments so his fanciful description of there being a separation is his own perception . The religious part of the constitution is 2 part . There is no state religion and people are free to exercise their faith. The first amendment is about protecting this right to believe and the government’s inability to tell us what to believe. Even those who don’t believe in God are protected.
    Ninety five percent of the original signers of the Constitution were Christian. Their goal wasn’t to tell us how to believe, but to protect our right to decide for ourselves without government interference. To use it as an excuse to exclude religion in the public square is a gross misreading of the intent.
  • Aug 23, 2019, 06:50 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    I don't think the shootings and violence we are experiencing is a moral issue, but a natural progression of more human failings.

    An evolutionist point of view, the law of the jungle in action and without a moral compass this is what you get. before the ten commandments men just did whatever they thought appropriate, those judeo-christian scriptures tell us that, don't know much about other religions, but I'm fairly sure the basic rules apply

    The shootings are a moral issue, particularly in a society that thinks gun ownership is more important than human life
  • Aug 23, 2019, 06:55 AM
    talaniman
    To use your religion as an excuse to dominate and control others is also I feel a gross misreading of intent. That started with the all men are equal EXCEPT reality of the founding of our nation and seems to be prevalent now. Not overtly as chains and whips, but certainly ingrained in practice, and we have many examples over the years, decades and centuries.
  • Aug 23, 2019, 07:08 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    An evolutionist point of view, the law of the jungle in action and without a moral compass this is what you get. before the ten commandments men just did whatever they thought appropriate, those judeo-christian scriptures tell us that, don't know much about other religions, but I'm fairly sure the basic rules apply

    The shootings are a moral issue, particularly in a society that thinks gun ownership is more important than human life

    The world still is a jungle Clete, despite the technical advances and fancy trappings of so called civility. We are a long way from the meek inheriting the Earth, and there are plenty of predators still lurking about. Many of some or other religion professing a God that entitles them to convert the heathens which translates to everybody else, but the true believer.
  • Aug 23, 2019, 07:14 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    The world still is a jungle Clete, despite the technical advances and fancy trappings of so called civility. We are a long way from the meek inheriting the Earth, and there are plenty of predators still lurking about. Many of some or other religion professing a God that entitles them to convert the heathens which translates to everybody else, but the true believer.

    Spare me the B/S Tal, you have the option of saying No! unless you live in a Muslim country. the question isn't what you believe as much as it is whether you force others to agree with you. I think you are a true believer in the 21st century religion of AGW
  • Aug 23, 2019, 07:18 AM
    jlisenbe
    Quote:

    I doubt 300 million people agree with your assessment, and while it's still your majority, I think good people of your own race reject your claim of entitled majority domination and really do want liberty and justice for all men being equal. Embrace the equality my friend and be better for it and a peaceful outcome. This is the way you can build your moral credibility, which your cruelty greatly overshadows.
    Entitled majority domination? Get some coffee quick!! You're not making sense.

    Quote:

    You can deny your own failings all you want, but don't try to make me believe in your perfection when clearly it is your domination you are exploiting and to be frank always have been. Now you can wrap that into morality all you want but history is a clear indication that your domination over others is not just flawed, but has consequences as well.
    I have denied my own failings? When have I done that? My perfection? My domination? What world did you wake up in this morning? You consider mass murders to be just a failing of humanity. I consider it to be a moral issue. People will have to decide for themselves, but I hope we don't post your "Law of the Jungle" on our schoolhouse walls.

    Quote:

    An evolutionist point of view, the law of the jungle in action and without a moral compass this is what you get. before the ten commandments men just did whatever they thought appropriate, those judeo-christian scriptures tell us that, don't know much about other religions, but I'm fairly sure the basic rules apply.
    Well said, especially the part about the moral compass. There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth on this board about the situation on the southern border. Should we consider that to be simply a failing of humanity, or is it a moral issue that should be addressed? And if we address it, would that be an example of domination by an entitled majority?

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:58 AM.