Dr. Watson said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

AGC said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

it's not about integrity and character. If you're going to be called racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, islamaphobic, etc. no matter who you run eventually the only appeal is platform

---

It is about integrity and character when one is willing to overlook one's integrity and character simply because they may be "mistreated" no matter what. Integrity and character matter regardless of how one is treated. That's what separates high character/integrity people from low. So, in the example we've latched to unfortunately, we have Christian "leaders" doing a complete 180 on the subject simply because it's their "platform".

So you end up with someone like Graham to whom, 20 years ago, the character of a husband and father was an indicator of the level of trust one could hold in them, yet now it matters not. Not to mention the damage that people like Graham do to the witness of the church when their hypocrisy is put on full display.

---

You've missed the point and I'm not sure how. We get that you don't like Graham, baptists, MQB, and the politics board. The point is that when more principled people are treated the same way, why should you believe the criticisms? You're read the fable about the boy who cries wolf, right? That's the press. And you to a certain extent.

---

And you talk of me missing the point? This has nothing to do w/ "not liking" Graham, Baptists, MQB or the politics board. Nice strawmen though (odd too, given that nobody mentioned Baptists or MQB). This isn't about Trump, no matter how much you may try to make it so. This is about how we seem to have a decline in the emphasis on character and integrity in our society. Trump, Graham, etc are merely examples of this. Since this is somehow stuck on the political aspect, this is something that we see in both sides. Tribalism tends to be blinding though.

What am I crying wolf about? What criticisms am I believing that I shouldn't?

---

Now re-read my posts together and see if you can understand. Your questions aren't pertinent.

---

How about you try to discuss things without the condescension? That will be much more fruitful. Please explain to me, without the strawmen and falsehoods, what I'm missing. You said that I am "to a certain extent" crying wolf. Please explain.

---

It's not condescension. It's frustration. I've explained my stance quite a bit and you don't seem to put my responses together. When every candidate is treated the same regardless of actual character and integrity, the criticism is eventually disregarded. Hence the Romney and McCain references. Both were immintently better people derided as murderers and a great many other things. Look at how Pence has been treated for going out of his way to be above reproach in his marriage. Quite simply, it doesn't matter who has an R next to their name. They'll be slimed and mistreated. So why should people pay attention to it? Further the malfeasance and criminal behavior of those currently in power resisting and attacking trump from the DoJ and FBI undermine such character claims.

Beyond that you fundamentally disagree with the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils. How could you ever accept what is viewed as a reasonable explanation by most, including a great many Christians? How will you ever be satisfied by the answer if you reject the basic premise?

---

Obama was accused of being a Muslim born in Kenya, trained at a madrassa, who was a postcolonial America-hater that idolized terrorists. Please stop pretending hyperbole only goes one way in American politics. What's pathetic is that the response on one side is to justify the idolizing of a terrible human being.

---

Accusations are a funny thing. Thanks for picking several that bear out as grounded in reality. How would you characterize reverend Wright and his sermons, if not postcolonial and American hating? And obama's pardon of actual terrorists while in office? Sounds like they were more than hyperbole to me.

Romney killing a woman with cancer via Bain? Or giffords getting shot because of a target on her district in a political graphic? Pence hating gays? Yeah that's a negative.

You still haven't actually addressed the argument though. My point was that in treating Romney, McCain and GWB so poorly that you made others tone deaf to your objections as all are imminently more principled that's trump. And all you can do is say, "but O"?

---

It's funny how you've proven my point by assuming the accusations against Obama are true while the accusations against people on your side are false or blown out of proportion. Shouldn't that make Democrats so tone deaf to your objections that they would nominate a Trump-like character? And all you can do is validate the point?

---

There's a difference between saying that someone who attends a church for a long time agrees with his pastor's message (O) and that someone killed a person with cancer because of a hedge fund they worked for (Romney). There's a difference between saying that someone who is friend with Bill Ayers (O) is responsible for a shooting of a dem by a crazy guy. If you can demonstrate the history with more moderate candidates being demonized with worse accusations like those, then present your evidence. Otherwise let's not treat your response like you demonstrated anything comparable.

O pardoned an actual domestic terrorist from Puerto Rico. It's a bit embarrassing to have to defend that against the label of hyperbole from a history professor.

k2aggie07 said:

---

You know, I don't agree with the folks saying "well, people have always been good or bad." While I think this is true, I don't think it is relevant.

People are people, always have been, always will be. Granted. But society changes, has changed. There has been a general coarsening of society for a couple of centuries. I'm not necessarily talking about the lower rungs of society, because there has always been a disparity. But the upper and middle classes in general held themselves to standards which have been lowered, and are lowering.

---

Can you give some examples?

I'm curious what you mean be the coarsening of society?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I"m so worn out on the pathetic 'it's the media bull****'.

---

Riveting. Five stars. Would read again.

---

How often do you listen to NPR, read The Times, or watch CNN? Probably about as often as liberals listen to Limbaugh or watch Sean Hannity. . . right? The problem is not the number of media outlets on each side, its that when we have the choice, we all choose to consume our news from the place that constantly confirms our bias.

I'm sorry that liberals think you are a misogynist, racist, and homophobic because you are conservative. But guess what! Conservatives think I'm a racist socialist who hates white people and Christians and wants to take their guns away because I'm a liberal.

There is so little integrity left in political discussion. No one cares about the truth. They care about their team. Liberals tell themselves think that all republicans are bigots and hypocrites who hate the poor because it helps them hold onto their position without the hassle of having to actually engage conservatives. Conservatives convince themselves that they are the world's biggest victims and that liberals want to take their guns and turn America into a gay, Muslim, utopia because it helps them hold onto their position without the hassle of having to actually engage liberals.

---

Spot on.

AGC said:

---

O pardoned an actual domestic terrorist from Puerto Rico. It's a bit embarrassing to have to defend that against the label of hyperbole from a history professor.

---

In '90 H.W. Bush pardoned and gave asylum to a Cuban terrorist responsible for almost 15 times the number of deaths as Rivera. And probably for the same reasons as Obama.

I'm not bringing up this whataboutism in order to defend Obama or start an argument about the merits of the two pardons. I simply think it demonstrates that Americans aren't interested in integrity in our politics. Bush pardoned a terrorist, but I doubt you'll find any conservatives that think he's a terrorist. Obama does it for the same ****ty political reasons and now he's a terrorist. yeah?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I"m so worn out on the pathetic 'it's the media bull****'.

---

Riveting. Five stars. Would read again.

---

How often do you listen to NPR, read The Times, or watch CNN? Probably about as often as liberals listen to Limbaugh or watch Sean Hannity. . . right? The problem is not the number of media outlets on each side, its that when we have the choice, we all choose to consume our news from the place that constantly confirms our bias.

I'm sorry that liberals think you are a misogynist, racist, and homophobic because you are conservative. But guess what! Conservatives think I'm a racist socialist who hates white people and Christians and wants to take their guns away because I'm a liberal.

There is so little integrity left in political discussion. No one cares about the truth. They care about their team. Liberals tell themselves think that all republicans are bigots and hypocrites who hate the poor because it helps them hold onto their position without the hassle of having to actually engage conservatives. Conservatives convince themselves that they are the world's biggest victims and that liberals want to take their guns and turn America into a gay, Muslim, utopia because it helps them hold onto their position without the hassle of having to actually engage liberals.

---

Wrong - and I'm sorry to derail your response so early. Daily is the answer to your question. And I never listen to Hannity or Limbaugh. As a matter of fact the only time I watch Fox News is election night, if I'm actually home (which I'm not typically). I prefer twitter and reading source / criticized articles for myself. I also follow people across the ideological spectrum. Fun as Ben Shapiro is, he and others take shortcuts for clickbait. It's pretty easy to spot poorly argued articles and those that impute motive without support or resort to hyperbole (as sapper calls it).

The idea of O as a moderate when he killed the moderate dem presence with o-care just doesn't stand up to the evidence. It's a poor example. The irony of liberal outlets mourning Romney and McCain as respectable in the era of trump is disgusting given how they threaten them during their runs.

We also have corresponded between HRC's campaign and major media outlets for which candidates to push and coverage. We know CNN gave her questions. And we know about journolist years before. The belief in an independent fourth estate is dead and self inflicted.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

O pardoned an actual domestic terrorist from Puerto Rico. It's a bit embarrassing to have to defend that against the label of hyperbole from a history professor.

---

In '90 H.W. Bush pardoned and gave asylum to a Cuban terrorist responsible for almost 15 times the number of deaths as Rivera. And probably for the same reasons as Obama.

I'm not bringing up this whataboutism in order to defend Obama or start an argument about the merits of the two pardons. I simply think it demonstrates that Americans aren't interested in integrity in our politics. Bush pardoned a terrorist, but I doubt you'll find any conservatives that think he's a terrorist. Obama does it for the same ****ty political reasons and now he's a terrorist. yeah?

---

Well you're arguing something completely different which is why it is whataboutism. Sapper present O as singular person to demonstrate that moderate liberals were demonized by the right. He then said among other things it was hyperbole to say he idolized terrorists, only for him to go pardon one who was idolized on the far left. It makes Sapper's claim hollow, as does a quick listen to O's pastor's sermons over the years when it comes to asserting he wasn't a post-colonial America hater. Not exactly hyperbole. As mentioned before he killed the moderate dems off with o-care and pushed the party left. As for Muslim sympathizing his handling of the Iran deal was (and continues to unfold as) a complete debacle that does nothing to assuage concerns. Not exactly a beacon of mistreatment of a moderate.

Romney and McCain have done little to justify how they were slandered with 'hyperbole'.

You need to define what you mean by state. The 1st Amendment was only for the Federal government, and did absolutely nothing with regard to state governments. It is a guarantee of freedom of religion. Read it, don't think about what you're told. What does it say?

Quote:

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

---

Says nothing about keeping the religion away from government. The first clause is about citizens being able to worship freely. Protection of religion from government.

Further evidence: in the early days of the colonies 8 had established state churches. Part of the first amendment was to protect the various states from each other's churches -- to ensure that the Federal government didn't impose. Most states had some kind of oath or requirement to hold office (to confess the Christian faith). State support of religion in the US wasn't formally ended until Gitlow v. New York, in 1925 (under the 14th amendment). So this is about the Federal government, not the state in general.


Our constitution was an extension of, and built on, English Common Law. So Magna Carta was part of our structure, and Magna Carta was to protect the Church of England from King John. He and others before him wanted to make the church and the crown the same institution, seeing as if the Church was the Church of England and the king was king of England, he was king of the church. Magna Carta said the church had rights and liberties.

The first clause of Magna Carta says: "by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired."

When we view it against the backdrop of English history and common law, the first amendment is certainly about protecting the people from congress, not the other way around.

Read this for some good stuff. https://americanvision.org/3524/the-forgotten-clauses-of-the-magna-carta/

I brought up Obama to point out the hypocrisy in your position that this all comes from one side of the spectrum. And nothing you've said has refuted my initial argument. All you've done is parrot right-wing talking points without even acknowledging any other positions or complexities.

There's a thread on the general board in which calling a woman "ma'am" is insulting outside of the south.

Dr. Watson said:

---

I brought up Obama to point out the hypocrisy in your position that this all comes from one side of the spectrum. And nothing you've said has refuted my initial argument. All you've done is parrot right-wing talking points without even acknowledging any other positions or complexities.

---

So I didn't refute your response to an argument I'm not making and you get points? Ok. RAs opinions are not in question. I offered an explanation as to how that played out for those he was clearly criticizing.

I don't see how this refutes or confounds anything I said. Madison also thought the constitution didn't need the enumerated amendments because the natural rights of the citizens were clear. *shrug*

k2aggie07 said:

---

I don't see how this refutes or confounds anything I said. Madison also thought the constitution didn't need the enumerated amendments because the natural rights of the citizens were clear. *shrug*

---

The Constitution clearly protects citizens from a link between religion and the state.

Clearly must mean something different to you. The constitution limits the government, not the faith or the citizens.

I don't even know what your sentence means. "A link" is pretty vague.

Either way, there was no history of oppressive theocracy in England. On the other hand, there is a long history of the English reigning in monarchs (ie the state). It's ahistorical to project the current idea of separation of church and state backwards to that time.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The 1st Amendment was only for the Federal government, and did absolutely nothing with regard to state governments. It is a guarantee of freedom of religion. Read it, don't think about what you're told. What does it say?

Quote:

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

---

Says nothing about keeping the religion away from government. The first clause is about citizens being able to worship freely. Protection of religion from government.

---

Honestly, if I'm simply reading the original text of the first amendment, I fail to see how it offers any garuntee of freedom of religion. If the 13th amendment said "Congress shall not make any law with respect to the institution of slavery", would you say that protects anyone from slavery? Or if the 19th Amendment read "Congress shall not pass any laws regarding women's right to vote", does that protect women's right to vote?

If the First Amendment only serves to say that Congress shall not pass any laws regarding religion. . . Then all it does is 'pass the buck' onto the states or local governments. How does it protect the church or your individual rights? It simply passes the judgement of what rights you should have to someone else.

In your opinion, do you feel that government institutions should be protected from religious influence? Should government at local levels be permitted to pass laws that favor one religion over the other? And should the establishment clause of the first amendment be part of our understanding of the meaning of the amendment?

I'm not sure what you are asking. It says that congress can't pass a law that establishes a state religion or one that prevents the free exercise of religion. The operative assumption here, again, is the backdrop of English common law. Free exercise of religion was a long held right of Englishmen. The church had rights and liberties and was protected from the government. So this is basically saying this new congress does not have the power to violate the status quo of English law. This is why Madison thought them superfluous, I think.

I have had this discussion on here before, but I don't think there is any inherent evil in a country having a national religion. I think that freedom of religion and state religions aren't mutually exclusive. I would need to understand what a law "favoring" a religion means. I believe in the two spheres doctrine - that civil governance and matters of faith have separate jurisdiction.

I really don't understand your last question though. Can you rephrase it?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Clearly must mean something different to you. The constitution limits the government, not the faith or the citizens.

I don't even know what your sentence means. "A link" is pretty vague.

Either way, there was no history of oppressive theocracy in England. On the other hand, there is a long history of the English reigning in monarchs (ie the state). It's ahistorical to project the current idea of separation of church and state backwards to that time.

---

Really? Because that's not what the Puritans believed, or just about anyone else from the era who read Foxe's Book of Martyrs. They saw church and state in England as inextricably linked, which to Enlightenment English was the cause of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. Toleration of all religious beliefs (save Catholicism) was a major project in the 18th century, and the existence of numerous dissenting traditions in the colonies that refused to swear oaths on religious grounds (such as the Quakers) made the link between state and church very contentious. Religious discrimination against Baptists, Quakers, Puritans (in the minds of the Puritans) all brought out calls of tyranny. The moves by later royal governors in Virginia to strengthen the position of the nominal state Anglican Church brought out fierce resistance. Separation between church and state is not a modern idea, it was one very vigorously discussed in the 18th century and the attitudes of some writers was more militant than what we believe today. By the end of the Revolution even those states that still had an "official"church had it in little more than name only. Laws supporting those institutions had withered for more than a generation before the Revolution and amounted to supporting the existence of religion in the state.

God gave humans the free will to have no integrity or character.

I just try to fear the Lord the best way I can and hope His light shines through me for all to see; hoping others will be led to Him.

Pennsylvania charter
"Section. 2. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their Own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account or his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or In any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.

Section 10... shall each [representative] before they proceed to business take... the following oath or affirmation:

'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.'

And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this state."

Pennsylvania Constitution
1776
"That no person, who acknowledges the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth."

Could you respond to my point, please? Speaking of taking history out of context, you'll find religious verbiage in everything until the later 19th century primarily out of tradition where church and state were one and the same. That does not mean the state promoted a specific religious tradition.

I think you're conflating modern definitions of separation of church and state with earlier ones.

Regardless, the limit is on government to not interfere with religion. You're saying the limit is on religion to not interfere with government. Further, this limit was expressed to only the federal government. Whether puritans or baptists or catholics or quakers thought differently or wanted differently doesn't change the text, and it doesn't change what they wrote, and it doesn't change why. Government doesn't establish or control religion, or interfere with the free exercise of it. That's the point.

In other words, the limitation was to protect religion from the government. Which, if I recall, is what I said in the first place.

Woody2006 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

OP knows better than to go to forum 16 looking for integrity and character.

---

It was really one particular comment, or actually a general sentiment I've seen growing, that prompted the OP. I'm starting to see more and more people say things like "I don't care how often (insert face of my tribe) lies to me. I just care about results." To me, that is telling. To me, that's saying character does not matter. Results trump character, which as a Christian, I find abhorrent no matter what tribe spews it.

---

Don't worry... personal character and integrity will matter to forum 16 once again at whatever point the Dems re-take power.

---

Good one. LOL

*written by Jefferson.

And I don't think it supports your interpretation. But i got off the OP topic and I apologize.

Madison actually changed the wording from "fullest toleration" to "free exercise of religion," making it truly about untangling the state from any regulation into the conscience of a citizen. He also wrote the "Memorial and Remonstrance" that accompanied Jefferson's old text and added 15 reasons why government should not support churches. This was the portion of the document supported by over 2,000 gentlemen in Virginia. Upon passage, Madison wrote Jefferson, "I flatter myself we have in this country extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind."

Free exercise of religion does not mean keep all religion out of government. You keep saying it as if they were synonymous, and they are not.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but the first amendment exists to protect the free exercise of religion from government, not to scrub all religious aspects from the government. The concern wasn't a tyrannical church, it was a tyrannical government.

Anyway you could sum up the general sentiment of separation of church and state in those days as "we all believe in God, so there's no reason to bring religion into it."

k2aggie07 said:

---

Free exercise of religion does not mean keep all religion out of government. You keep saying it as if they were synonymous, and they are not.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but the first amendment exists to protect the free exercise of religion from government, not to scrub all religious aspects from the government. The concern wasn't a tyrannical church, it was a tyrannical government.

Anyway you could sum up the general sentiment of separation of church and state in those days as "we all believe in God, so there's no reason to bring religion into it."

---

The concern was tyranny of any sort whether from church or government. Why do you think so many feared and hated Catholics in that age in the colonies and the states? They feared Catholics served the Pope first and foremost. And they certainly didn't all believe in the same God, or didn't believe others believed in the same God as them. And that goes for divisions we find trivial today such as between different Protestant groups.

Here's Madison on the subject:

Quote:

---

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.5 We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

---

Quote:

---

If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

In other words, the limitation was to protect religion from the government. Which, if I recall, is what I said in the first place.

---

How well does this interpretation protect religion? All you are saying is that Congress won't interfere. As you pointed out, many states had state sponsored religions, used tax dollars to support particular churches, etc - sounds like interference into religious jurisdiction to me.

Unless the first amendment applies similar to states, and every level of government, I fail to see how it is an effective protection. I guess it's a protection from federal level tyranny . . . But not from state or local levels of tyranny? And tyranny at those levels is acceptable?

You completely missed my point. But there is no convincing you on this. You probably believe Columbus was the first to think the world was round, that Galileo was persecuted for heliocentrism, and the there was such a thing as the dark ages. You've certainly bought into the lie that there was such a thing as the enlightenment.

Yeah, it's pretty disgusting to watch Forum 16 sit on the sidelines and cheer mass murder and destruction for the cause of Anglo Zionist hegemony over the globe. I have much more respect for people like OP and Watson who are repentant willing participants. Granted, reformed prostitutes (self included) are the most self righteous people alive. You'd think human scum would have more patience and understanding with other human scum, but we don't.

Dr. Watson,

In what way was the church and state "one and the same". What particular "link" between church and state does the Constitution protect citizens from? What did the Puritans believe regarding this link?